VINEET HURIYA Vs. AKANSHA HURIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26/06/2019 and 09/07/2019 passed by the 1 st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore.

(2.) The petitioner has filed a petition under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 22/02/2014 at Indore with the respondent who is presently resident of Bangkok, Thailand. On 07/12/2018, notices were issued but the same returned unserved. Thereafter, again notices were issued on 04/02/2019 through legal cell inter security second division, Government of India. Thereafter, in the month of May, 2019, notices were issued, but all the effects for service has drain into the waste. Ultimately on 26/06/2019, the petitioner has filed an application under section 151 of C.P.C praying therein that the notices be served through email, facebook, messenger or through other social media. The Court below, vide order dated 26/06/2019, has rejected the said application on the ground that as authenticate email ID or other ID have not been provided, therefore, notices cannot be issued.. Thereafter, the petitioner had again filed an application under section 151 of C.P.C alongwith the documents of email, printout of facebook and phone number. Along with this application, copy of the order passed in other case has also been filed, where notices were issued to respondent through email and other social media. The Court below vide order dated 09/07/2019 has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is illegal and the Court below has failed to consider that the case is pending for last eight months at the stage of issuance of the notice. He submits that as the notices through Court have not been served, therefore, the petitioner should have been permitted to serve notice through social media. He further submits that the Court below has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that the given email ID was created by the respondent. He further submits that in the internet world, nobody can produce the said documents as pointed out by the learned Court below. In such circumstances, he submits that the order impugned be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to serve the respondent through email ID and other mode of social media.