Wife Remains Ex Parte In Husband’s Divorce Case After Delhi HC Cites Valid Service, 15-Month Delay

The petitioner invoked Article 227 to challenge the Family Court’s order dated 1 October 2026, which rejected her application to recall the order proceeding against her ex parte in matrimonial proceedings.

She argued that service through her mother and subsequent affixation of summons did not amount to valid service, and sought an opportunity to file a written statement and contest the case.

The Family Court had relied on process-server reports recording an earlier refusal and affixation, and a later visit at which the petitioner’s mother declined to accept the summons and the summons was affixed.

The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 10 September 2024; the recall application was filed on 20 December 2025, after evidence had been recorded.

Before the High Court, counsel confined the challenge to the validity of service.

Order V Rules 15 and 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern service on an adult family member in the circumstances specified by the rule and service by affixation where the prescribed conditions are met; the Family Court found those provisions complied with on the facts.

The Family Court also considered the recall application in the context of Order IX Rules 7 and 13 CPC.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction: interference is warranted for patent illegality, jurisdictional infirmity, perversity, or a manifest failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law, and not merely to reassess evidence or substitute another view.

The Court referred to Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 353, for the need to prevent avoidable delay in matrimonial proceedings, while recognising that expedition does not displace due process.

The High Court found that the Family Court had considered the process-server reports, the procedural history, and the petitioner’s objections before concluding that service was valid.

It noted that the petitioner did not dispute the process server’s visit to her address or his meeting with her mother, and that the Family Court had also considered the earlier report recording refusal and affixation.

The petitioner’s failure to appear, the subsequent progress of the proceedings, and the delay before seeking recall were also relevant to the Family Court’s decision.

Since the challenge sought reconsideration of the same material and disclosed no jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or perversity, Article 227 did not permit the High Court to undertake appellate reappraisal.

The High Court dismissed the petition, along with any pending applications.