An ex parte divorce decree must be set aside when defective service denies the spouse a fair hearing.

The respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion by the appellant-wife.

He alleged that the parties, married in 2005, had lived together for approximately fifteen years and had a son, but that their relationship deteriorated from 2020.

The petition alleged physical and mental cruelty, an extra-marital relationship, repeated quarrels, assault, and desertion by the wife from September 2021.

The Family Court issued notice by registered post and paper publication.

The wife did not appear, file a written statement, cross-examine witnesses, or adduce evidence, and an ex parte decree of divorce was passed on 6/7 March 2025.

In appeal, the wife contended that she had never received effective notice because the husband had furnished an incorrect address at Aralia, Tulakona, although she was residing at Jawharnagar, Ambassa.

She asserted that she had no knowledge of the paper publication and was thereby denied an opportunity to contest the proceedings.

Whether the appellant-wife was denied a reasonable opportunity to contest the divorce proceeding because notice was not properly served at her actual address.

Whether the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce should be set aside and the matter remanded for a de novo trial.

The appeal was governed by Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, particularly the requirement that a party must receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to present a defence before an adverse adjudication is made.

The Court noted that the husband had mentioned the wife’s address as Aralia, Tulakona, whereas the wife claimed that she was residing at Jawharnagar, Ambassa during the relevant period.

It considered that the discrepancy in address could explain why notice was not effectively served and that paper publication might not reasonably have come to the knowledge of a rustic village woman.

Since the wife had neither appeared nor participated in the proceedings, she had no opportunity to file a written statement, cross-examine the husband’s witnesses, or adduce evidence.

In these circumstances, the Court held that fairness required that she be allowed to contest the divorce petition and that the matter be tried afresh.

The judgment dated 6 March 2025 and consequential decree dated 7 March 2025 passed by the Family Court, Ambassa, were set aside.

The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a de novo trial, with directions to permit the appellant-wife to file a written statement, record the evidence of both parties afresh, and thereafter deliver a fresh judgment in accordance with law.

Both parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on 28 September 2026, and all pending applications were disposed of.