RAJAN PAUL Vs. GEEJI RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the petitioner in an application for divorce before the Family Court, Ernakulam. THE application was filed in the year 2010. Notice was ordered to the respondent. We are informed that notice has been returned with an endorsement "addressee not known". THE court below when the matter came up again directed issue of notice in correct address. THE petitioner had filed an application for substituted service. THE court below evidently was not satisfied that sufficient efforts have been made to ascertain the correct present address of the respondent. THE relief claimed is one of consequence - divorce on the ground, inter alia, of cruelty. Ext.P2 is the order under which the court did not readily accept the request for substituted service; but directed issue of fresh notice to the respondent in correct address.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though divorce has not been claimed on the ground of adultery, the fact is that the respondent/wife has eloped with someone else and her whereabouts are not known. What is the address of the respondent shown in the petition? It is submitted that as per Ext.P1 marriage certificate to evidence solemnization of marriage on 20/4/86, the address of the respondent shown is the address presently shown in the petition. That address was furnished in April, 1986. It would be idle to assume that the respondent/wife would be available now at that address. THE petitioner undoubtedly has the burden to ensure that there is proper service of notice on the respondent. More so in a case like the instant one where relief or divorce is claimed of a marriage that has been in force for the past about 24 years. THE convenient assertion now made by the petitioner that he is not aware of the whereabouts of the respondent cannot be meekly swallowed by an alert and sensitive court. That exactly is what the court below has done by passing the impugned order. THE petitioner must be mulcted with the responsibility to search and find out the correct address of the respondent to ensure proper service before such an order of great civil consequences is sought to be passed against the respondent. It is admitted that the matter was coming up for the first time after return of the first notice issued to the respondent with the endorsement 'addressee not known'. THE petitioner undoubtedly has the burden to search and find out the present whereabouts of the respondent. THE court below, according to us, has not committed any error. We note that the court below has sensitively appreciated the interests of justice in the given situation. We are satisfied that there is absolutely no warrant for invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution. THE petitioner must make efforts, search and find out the present correct address of the respondent. If all reasonable efforts fail, it will certainly be open to the petitioner to seek further direction from the court below at the appropriate stage; but certainly at this stage the petitioner cannot seek substituted service without and before attempting service properly and directly.