RAJEEV KUMAR Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On May 17, 2016 notice was issued in the appeal to the respondent/wife returnable for Aug. 11, 2016. The Process Server reported that since nobody in the house received the notice service was effected by affixation. On Aug. 11, 2016 fresh notice returnable for today was issued by ordinary process and registered A.D. post noting that since there was no order to effect service by affixation, the report pertaining to the order dated May 17, 2016 had to be ignored.

(2.) Summons sent by ordinary process had been returned by Process Server with the report that father of the respondent/wife refused to receive the notice and therefore, it was affixed. Report from the postal authorities is that the addressee refused to receive the notice.

(3.) Impugned order shows that after being served the respondent/wife entered appearance but failed to appear thereafter and was proceeded against ex-parte on Dec. 11, 2013, which order was set aside on August 08, 2014 on an application filed by the respondent/wife. Written statement filed was taken on record. The respondent/wife stopped appearing thereafter and was proceeded ex-parte on Dec. 10, 2015. The impugned order albeit dismissing petition for divorce filed by the appellant, is an ex-parte decision.