Purnima@ Neha vs Gagan Kumar

$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 06.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010543822026
+ CM(M) 2457/2026 & CM APPL. 78276/2026 (Stay)
PURNIMA@ NEHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate
through Video Conferencing.

versus

GAGAN KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)

1. The present Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the Order dated 01.10.2026
[“ Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [“ learned Family Court”] , in
HMA No. 1929/2022, titled “Gagan Kumar vs. Purnima @ Neha”.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would
confine his submissions to challenging the Impugned Order on the
ground that the learned Family Court has erroneously rejected the
application seeking recall of the Order dated 10.09.2024, whereby the
Petitioner was proceeded against ex parte . He would submit that the
service purportedly effected upon the mother of the Petitioner could
not be construed as valid service upon the Petitioner herself. He would
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
16:13:58
CM(M) 2457/2026 Page 1 of 9

further contend that the subsequent affixation of summons, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, was also insufficient to constitute valid
service. Accordingly, it is contended that the Petitioner ought to be
afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the
learned Family Court, file her written statement and contest the matter
on merits.
3. It is apposite to note that no further grounds were urged by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and it is on this
limited argument that this Court would proceed to adjudicate the
present lis.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Petitioner and, with his able assistance, gone through the contents
of the Impugned Judgment. The relevant paragraphs of the Impugned
Judgment, which in detail set out the reasoning as to why the
application came to be rejected, are as follows:-
“4. In this case, directions were given on various dates for issuance
of summons by speed post and ordinary process. There are three
returned speed post envelopes on record by which the summons
were sent to the respondent. The postal article for 12.10.2023 was
returned unserved with the report of "unclaimed", postal article for
09.01.2024 was returned without clear reason for the return and the
postal article for 06.03.2024 was returned with the report of
"incomplete address".
5. The summons sent for service through the District Court
Ghaziabad for 06.03.2024 was returned with the report of the
process server Mr Raj Bahadur Singh that the respondent met him
and refused to accept the summon. Thereafter, he affixed the
summon on the main gate in the south corner. The report is not
accompanied by an affidavit but as per the practice it is verified by
the process server on oath. This report was perused by my Ld.
Predecessor and he directed that the respondent be served through
the reader of the court concerned at Ghaziabad for the next date i.e.
18.04.2024.
6. For 18.04.2024 the process was not returned and consequently
fresh summons were issued for 11.07.2024. This time the process
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
16:13:58
CM(M) 2457/2026 Page 2 of 9

server at Ghaziabad Mr Atul Kumar visited the address of the
respondent on 05.07.2024. Mother of the respondent told the
process server that the respondent had gone out and she did not
know when she would return. The mother of the respondent
refused to accept the summon and thereafter the process server
affixed the summon. The report is verified by the process server on
oath.
7. Vide order dated 11.03.2024, the respondent was treated as
served. The petitioner was directed to pay 11,000 as litigation
expenses to the respondent on or before 12.08.2024. Direction was
also given that the parties shall appear before the Principal
Counsellor on 12.08.2024 to explore the possibility of settlement.
It was also mentioned that in case there was no settlement, the
respondent would file the WS within one month with copy to the
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner could file the
replication within one month thereafter. The matter was adjourned
for 10.09.2024.
8. On 10.09.2024, the report of the Principal Counsellor was
received that the respondent did not appear for the counselling and
therefore the matter could not be settled. After waiting til2 اpm,
the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte. The petitioner filed
his evidence affidavit as PW-1 on 12.11.2024 and he examined
PW-2, 3 & 4 on 21.11.2025. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned
for 20.12.2025 for ex-parte Final Arguments. The matter was
pending at the same stage when firstly the application U/O 9 rule
13 and thereafter the application U/O 9 rule 7 CPC was moved.
9. The respondent contends that the address is correct but the
sunmons were never served upon her. It is stated that the refusal by
her mother cannot be treated a valid service as she was not served
personally and no substituted service was validly effected. She also
contends that without ensuring valid service and compliance of the
previous orders, the Court proceeded against ex parte. She claims
that just before the previous date, the counsel for the petitioner at
Ghaziabad informed her about the present proceedings. Thereafter,
she immediately engaged Ld. Counsel and Ld. Counsel filed the
Vakalatnama. But the Vakalatnama was not taken on recore she
had already been proceeded against ex-parte.
10. No reply has been filed by the petitioner. I have considered the
arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties and I have perused the
record.
11. The respondent has not claimed that the process server did not
visit her address on 05.07.2024 and that he did not meet her
mother. She has only stated that there was no personal service and
no valid substituted service. The report of the process server is
mentioned above in detail. The affixation of the summon was in
accordance with Order 5 rule 15 &17 CPC.
12. The respondent is also conspicuously silent about the report for
06.03.2024 which states the process server met her and on her
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
16:13:58
CM(M) 2457/2026 Page 3 of 9

refusal to accept the summon, he affixed it on the main gate of the
house. This was also a valid service under Order 5 rule 17 CPC.
There is no substance in the contention of the respondent that she
was not validly served.
13. Despite the service by affixation for 06.03.2024, my Ld.
Predecessor was pleased to direct that the respondent be served
through the reader of the Court concerned at Ghaziabad but the
process for the next date i.e. 18.04.2024 was not returned. Vide
order dated 18.04.2024, my Ld. Predecessor gave direction for
issuance of fresh summon for 11.07.2024. But this time the
direction was for service through the Ld. District Judge,
Ghaziabad. The summons was served and the report was received
as mentioned My Ld. Predecessor accepted the report. Therefore it
cannot be said that the service for 11.07.2024 was not valid as
there was an earlier direction for service through the reader of the
Court concerned at Ghaziabad.
14. The respondent has not raised the issue of non-payment of the
litigation expenses by the petitioner which he was supposed to pay
before 12.08.2024. It is not her case that the petitioner was
informed about the bank account in which he could have
transferred the amount. It is also not her case that she could not
appear in this matter due to financial difficulty which could have
been addressed by the payment of the litigation expenses. She was
served but she chose not to appear and also did not attend the
counselling on 12.03.2024.
15. The record of the case shows that the respondent was validly
served for 06.03.2024 and also for 11.07.2024. The application
U/O 9 rule 7 had to be moved by the next date after 11.07.2024 Le
10.09.2024 but the application U/O 9 rule 13 CPC which could
have been treated as an application U/O 9 rule 7 CPC was filed as
late as 20.12.2025.
16. Expressing anguish over procrastination and delays in the
matrimonial matters, Hon'ble Supreme Court made some
observations in the matter reported as Bhuwan Mohan Singh v
Meena and ors. (2015) 6 SCC353. The matter originated out of
proceedings under Sec 125 CrPC but in para 13 of the judgment
general observations were made regarding the need to curb delays
in a matrimonial matters. It would be apposite to reproduce the
relevant portion of the judgement reads as under:
“13. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is that in the
case at hand the proceedings before the Family Court was
conducted without being alive to the Objects and Reasons
of the Act and the spirit of the provisions under Section
125 of the Code. It is unfortunate that the case continued
for nine years before the Family Court. It has come to the
notice of the Court that on certain occasions the Family
Courts have been granting adjoumments in a routine
manner as a consequence of which both the parties suffer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
16:13:58
CM(M) 2457/2026 Page 4 of 9

or, on certain occasions, the wife becomes the worst
victim. When such a situation occurs, the purpose of the
law gets totally atrophied. The Family Judge is expected to
be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with extremely
delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and
issues ancillary thereto. When we say this, we do not mean
that the Family Courts should show undue haste or
impatience, but there is a distinction between impatience
and to be wisely anxious and conscious about dealing with
a situation. A Family Court Judge should remember that
the procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis before
it. It not only gives rise to more family problems but also
gradually builds unthinkable and Everestine bitterness. It
leads to the cold refrigeration of the hidden feelings, if still
left. The delineation of the lis by the Family Judge must
reveal the awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any
of due parties has to be sternly dealt with, for the Family
Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the lis before
him pertains to emotional fragmentation and delay can
feed it to grow. We hope and trust that the Family Court
Judges shall remain alert to this and decide the matters as
expeditiously as possible keeping in view the Objects and
Reasons of the Act and the scheme of various provisions
pertaining to grant of maintenance, divorce, custody of
child, property disputes, etc.” (Emphasis supplied)

17. This court has held that the respondent did not appear in this
matter despite valid service and that there is no merit in her
application. No leniency can be shown on the ground that it is a
matrimonial matter and that the respondent would suffer if she is
not allowed to contest the matter. Dilatory tactics are not to be
encouraged as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
(emphasis supplied)

5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and has carefully
perused the reasoning assigned by the learned Family Court in the
Impugned Order. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that the very
grounds which are sought to be urged before this Court in challenge to
the Impugned Order have been specifically raised before and duly
considered by the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court has
examined the objections pertaining to the alleged invalidity of service
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
16:13:58
CM(M) 2457/2026 Page 5 of 9

upon the Petitioner through her mother, the subsequent affixation of
summons at the address furnished for service, as well as the
contention that the Petitioner was never personally served with the
summons. These aspects have not been brushed aside or dealt with
cursorily; rather, the learned Family Court has examined the reports of
the process servers, the sequence of orders passed in the proceedings
and the conduct of the Petitioner, before arriving at the conclusion that
the service effected upon her was valid.
6. A perusal of the Impugned Order would reveal that the learned
Family Court has taken note of the process server's report dated
06.03.2024, wherein it was specifically recorded that the Petitioner
had refused to accept the summons and that the same was thereafter
affixed at the main gate of the premises. The learned Family Court has
further noticed that the Petitioner has not disputed the visit of the
process server to her address on 05.07.2024 or the fact that he had met
her mother, who declined to accept the summons on the Petitioner's
behalf, following which the summons were affixed. Upon
consideration of these circumstances, the learned Family Court has
returned a finding that the procedure contemplated under Order V
Rules 15 and 17 of the CPC stood duly complied with. The learned
Family Court has also taken note of the subsequent steps undertaken
for service through the District Judge, Ghaziabad, and the fact that the
report received pursuant thereto was accepted by the Court. Thus, the
finding regarding valid service is not founded upon an isolated
circumstance but emerges from a consideration of the entire sequence
of events and the material available on the record.
7. This Court further finds that the learned Family Court has not
confined its consideration merely to the question of service but has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
16:13:58
CM(M) 2457/2026 Page 6 of 9

also examined the conduct of the Petitioner and the circumstances in
which the application seeking recall of the ex parte proceedings came
to be instituted. It has specifically noticed that despite the service
having been treated as valid, the Petitioner did not enter appearance
and remained absent when the matter was taken up for counselling.
The learned Family Court has also taken note of the fact that the
proceedings had progressed substantially in the interregnum , with the
Petitioner having been proceeded against ex parte on 10.09.2024,
followed by the recording of the Petitioner's evidence and examination
of the other witnesses. It was only thereafter, on 20.12.2025, that the
application seeking recall came to be instituted. These circumstances
have been considered by the learned Family Court while examining
whether any sufficient ground had been made out for recalling the
order proceeding against the Petitioner ex parte .
8. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is unable to discern
any infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Family Court.
The submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner are, in
substance, an attempt to seek a fresh appreciation of the very same
material which has already been considered by the learned Family
Court. The jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and does not confer
upon this Court the jurisdiction of an appellate forum to reassess the
evidence or substitute its own conclusions merely because another
view may be possible on the same material. Interference would be
warranted only where the order under challenge suffers from patent
illegality, jurisdictional infirmity, perversity or a manifest failure to
exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law. No such infirmity has
been demonstrated in the present case.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
16:13:58
CM(M) 2457/2026 Page 7 of 9

9. It is also relevant to note that the learned Family Court has dealt
with the contention regarding service in considerable detail and has
returned findings upon examining the relevant reports and the
procedural history of the proceedings. The mere reiteration of the
same objections before this Court, without demonstrating any error
apparent in the reasoning adopted by the learned Family Court, cannot
furnish a ground for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution. This Court cannot be called upon to
undertake a second round of adjudication on the question of service,
particularly when the learned Family Court has considered the same
and recorded reasons in support of its conclusion. To do so would
effectively amount to converting the jurisdiction under Article 227
into one of regular appellate scrutiny, which is impermissible.
10. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the proceedings
arise out of matrimonial litigation and that the consequences of an ex
parte adjudication may have a bearing upon the rights and interests of
the parties. However, the nature of the proceedings, by itself, cannot
be a ground to disregard the procedural history of the case or to
unsettle findings which have been returned by the learned Family
Court after due consideration of the material on record. The learned
Family Court has also adverted to the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors., (2015) 6
SCC 353 , emphasising the need to ensure expeditious disposal of
matrimonial proceedings and to guard against unnecessary
procrastination. While such observations cannot dispense with the
requirement of ensuring due process, they reinforce the need for
proceedings before Family Courts to be conducted with due
expedition and without avoidable delays.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
16:13:58
CM(M) 2457/2026 Page 8 of 9

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
Impugned Order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, patent
illegality or perversity warranting interference in the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Family Court has considered the grounds urged by the
Petitioner, examined the relevant material and assigned reasons for
rejecting the application seeking recall of the order proceeding against
her ex parte . This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the present
Petition and is not inclined to interfere with the Impugned Order.
12. Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending
application(s), if any, stands dismissed.
13. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.



HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J
NOVEMBER 6, 2026/nd/va


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
16:13:58
CM(M) 2457/2026 Page 9 of 9