JUDGMENT : Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J .: Prayer: 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2024 and decree dated 27.04.2024 passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the marriage between the appellant-wife, namely, Barkha Rani and the respondent-husband, namely, Sanjay Kumar has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Factual Matrix: 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as: It is a case of the petitioner-husband that the marriage of the petitioner-husband, namely, Sanjay Kumar with Opposite Party- wife, namely, Barkha Rani was solemnized on 12.06.2005 at Dhanbad, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, the appellant-wife and respondent-husband lived together at Dhanbad. Out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with a child. It is stated by the respondent-husband herein that the appellant-wife has treated the husband with cruelty. Further, it has been stated that the appellant-wife has illicit relation with the person namely Avinash Vijay Ratan and presently the appellant-wife is residing with the same person. The petitioner-husband has filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal life which was decided in favour of husband on 23.03.2023 in Original Suit No. 124 of 2020, but in spite of that the appellant-wife is living with Avinash Vijay Ratna and declined to live with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner husband (respondent herein) filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Dhanbad under Section 13 (i)(i-a) (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty. 3. Since the wife (appellant herein) had not appear before the Family Court, the said case has been proceeded ex-parte . 4. The petitioner-husband, in support of his case, has adduced three witnesses including himself. Therefore, altogether three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the husband (respondent herein), namely, Shalini Das as P.W. 1, Archana Kumari, as P.W. 2 and Sanjay Kumar (respondent-husband herein) as P.W. 3. 5. 4. The petitioner-husband, in support of his case, has adduced three witnesses including himself. Therefore, altogether three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the husband (respondent herein), namely, Shalini Das as P.W. 1, Archana Kumari, as P.W. 2 and Sanjay Kumar (respondent-husband herein) as P.W. 3. 5. The relevant portion of the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned herein which reads as: (i) Sanjay Kumar , P.W. 3 is petitioner-husband (respondent herein) who has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was married with respondent Barkha Rani on 12.06.2005 without any dowry. They both are residing separately for about four years and on date 29.06.2019, the respondent without any reason left the sasural to reside with another person namely Abinash Vijay Ratna. Thereafter, he has filed a case No. 124/20 for restitution of conjugal life in which judgment was passed in his favour, but in spite of the order of the Court, she did not return to her sasural. The wife has no intimacy either with him or with her son. She is an irresponsible lady and she has no concern with him and his family members and so he has filed divorce case against her. In court question, he has further stated that his wife did not reside with him since 29.06.2019. The relation between both parties is not good since the solemnization of marriage on 12.06.2005. He had stated that 5-6 years ago, another person intervened to their conjugal life and thereafter the relation between both parties got deteriorated. He has seen the aforesaid person along with his wife in his house. He persuaded his wife but she did not ready to leave any things. (ii) Shalini Das, P.W. 1, is an independent witness, who deposed that this case was filed by Sanjay Kumar for divorce against his wife, Barkha Rani who is residing with Avinash Vijay her maika. The Rrealatntiao inn Bbheutwli e‘Den’ Blboockth. Shpea rdtoieess nwota sr esnidoet ing ood from the beginning of the marriage. (iii) Archana Kumari, P.W. 2 has fully corroborated the testimony of P.W. 3. 6. The Rrealatntiao inn Bbheutwli e‘Den’ Blboockth. Shpea rdtoieess nwota sr esnidoet ing ood from the beginning of the marriage. (iii) Archana Kumari, P.W. 2 has fully corroborated the testimony of P.W. 3. 6. The learned Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Dhanbad, from the statements of the witnesses so produced on behalf of petitioner husband, has come to the conclusion that “respondent towards petitioner certainly amounts to cruelty and further she has deserted the petitioner and her son for more than four years without any reasonable cause and presently she is residing with another person and settled with him except her husband. As such on the basis of discussion, made-above, I find and hold that petitioner has succeeded to prove his case with all probability and entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.” 7. Thus, the decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (i) (i-a) was passed ex parte in favour of petitioner-husband (respondent herein) 8. Aggrieved with the aforesaid ex-parte judgment and decree by which granting divorce has been granted, the present appeal has been preferred by the respondent wife (appellant herein). Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-wife: 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed which is not known to the appellant, since the same is an ex parte judgment. 10. It has been contended that even the learned trial Court has not taken care of the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure particularly the mandate of order V of the Code of Civil Procedure which is required to be followed in view of the Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 11. Further, submission has been made that the learned Family Court proceeded with the case ex parte without considering that there has no effective service of summons taken place in the light of provision stipulated under order V of the Civil procedure Code. 12. Learned counsel has further submitted that the husband has not filed any proof of service of summons upon the wife and also there is no proof of mode of service of summons upon the wife. 13. 12. Learned counsel has further submitted that the husband has not filed any proof of service of summons upon the wife and also there is no proof of mode of service of summons upon the wife. 13. It has been submitted by referring to the orders dated 22.07.2023 and 29.08.2023 that the learned Family Court has construed the issuance of notice and petition for paper publication as effective service of notice and the Family Court has proceeded with the matter ex parte. 14. The judgment was passed and somehow the appellant came to know about the same and immediately, thereafter, the appeal has been preferred on 18.05.2024. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is therefore a fit case to interfere with the impugned judgment by remitting it before the learned Family Judge for hearing afresh. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-husband: 16. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband has submitted that the appellant-wife has chosen not to appear and as such, the Court had no option but to proceed the suit ex parte against wife and to decide the issue on merit. 17. The learned Family Court has proceeded and has decided the matter on the basis of the material available on record, as such, it cannot be said that the judgment of dissolution of marriage suffers from any error. Analysis: 18. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, gone through the Trial Court Records, as also the impugned judgment and decree, the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents exhibited therein. 19. The foremost ground as has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and decree have been passed ex-parte without effective service of summon and, as such, we have not gone through the issue on merit, rather we have confined ourselves on the issue of the fact that as to whether the impugned judgment and decree can be said to be passed without effective service of summon. 20. This Court, in the pretext of the factual aspect herein is also to consider the issue of substantial justice which is mandatory requirement of the litigant concerned, in a case of prejudicing the right due to deprivation of the right to defence. 21. 20. This Court, in the pretext of the factual aspect herein is also to consider the issue of substantial justice which is mandatory requirement of the litigant concerned, in a case of prejudicing the right due to deprivation of the right to defence. 21. It requires to refer herein that the primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties on the basis of substantial justice. A court's duty is to deliver substantial justice, meaning ensuring fair outcomes based on merits. Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizens under personal, property and other laws. The procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify the miscarriage of justice. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706 has specifically observed that the procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation, relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order is being quoted as under: 9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the “ court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute--.” 23. In the case of Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand, (1977) 2 SCC 155 and tthhee sHtorant’ebgley Aopf ehxe acloinugrt ihnajuss otibcsee irsv eddis tchoavte r“yJu ostfi cthe ei sw trhuotlhe , tirsu bthe aauntdy harmonizing human relations. Law's finest hour is not in meditating on abstractions but in being the delivery agent of full fairness. In the case of Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand, (1977) 2 SCC 155 and tthhee sHtorant’ebgley Aopf ehxe acloinugrt ihnajuss otibcsee irsv eddis tchoavte r“yJu ostfi cthe ei sw trhuotlhe , tirsu bthe aauntdy harmonizing human relations. Law's finest hour is not in meditating on abstractions but in being the delivery agent of full fairness. This divagation is justified by the need to remind ourselves that the grammar of justice according to law is not little litigative so lution”. 24. Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth. It is truth which transcends every other action and when procedural law stands in the way of the truth, the Court must find a way to circumvent it. Similarly, when substantive law, as it appears, does not facilitate the emergence of the truth, it is the paramount duty of the Court to interpret the law in light of its telos. Such an exercise is warranted in a higher degree, particularly while considering a social welfare legislation, reference in this regard be Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju das Vs. Union of India & Anr 2025 INSC 43 . 25. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, the issue of substantial justice which is mandatory requirement of the litigant concerned in a case of prejudicing the right due to deprivation of right to defence is required to be considered on the basis of the admitted factual aspect. 26. But before entering into merit of the case of the appellant/wife, it would be apt to refer herein the relevant provisions of order V as stipulated in Civil Procedure Code. Order 5 Rule 17 and 20 provides as follows: 17. Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found . 26. But before entering into merit of the case of the appellant/wife, it would be apt to refer herein the relevant provisions of order V as stipulated in Civil Procedure Code. Order 5 Rule 17 and 20 provides as follows: 17. Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found . Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as “ aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving — officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose 20. Substituted service . (1) Where the Court is satisfied that there is presence the copy was affixed.” reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court House, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit. [(1-A) Where the Court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain.] (2) Effect of substituted service . Service substituted by order of the Court shall be as effectual as if —it had been made on the defendant personally. (3) Where service substituted, time for appearance to be fixed.— Where service is substituted by order of the Court, the Court shall fix such time for the appearance of the defendant as the case may require. 27. Thus, Order 5 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) deals with substituted service by affixture, allowing a court to deem a summons served if the defendant or agent refuses it, or the defendant can't be found after due diligence, by sticking a copy to their door, followed by a detailed report from the serving officer to the court. 28. Further it is evident that before ordering for substituted service through publication under Order 5 rule 20 CPC, the trial Court under statutory obligation to record reasons germane for justification of compliance of rule 20 CPC. 29. Further it is settled position of law that Order 5 Rule 20 requires the court to be satisfied either that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service or that for any other reason, the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smruti Pahariya v. Sanjay Pahariya, (2009) 13 SCC 338 . The Hon’ble case of Apex Court has further observed that the Court must apply its mind to the requirements of Order 5 Rule 20 and its order must indicate due consideration of the provisions contained in it. 30. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now adverting to the factual aspect of the case. 31. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner-husband has filed divorce suit being Original Suit No. 604 of 2023 which was disposed of by passing the ex parte judgment dated 16.04.2024 and decree dated 27.04. 30. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court is now adverting to the factual aspect of the case. 31. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner-husband has filed divorce suit being Original Suit No. 604 of 2023 which was disposed of by passing the ex parte judgment dated 16.04.2024 and decree dated 27.04. 2024.The fact about ex parte decree has not been disputed on behalf of the respondent-husband. 32. We have also gone through the order-sheets as available in Trial Court Record in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the notice/summon which is being said to be not effectively served to the appellant is actually substantiated by the order passed in order sheet of the learned Family Court. 33. We have considered the orders dated 22.07.2023 and 29.08.2023 wherefrom it is evident that the notice has been issued upon the appellant-wife and the address was shown of Pd. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya of Mughalsarai District in the State of Uttar Pradesh, while the specific case of the appellant is that she is living in her paternal house which is in Chandauli District in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 34. We are of the view that the purpose of issuance of notice is to apprise the party to the suit so that the said party may appear in the suit and defend himself/herself and merely the issuance of notice cannot be construed as effective service of notice. 35. The fact of the case herein is, as would be evident from the order dated 29.08.2023 wherein the issuance of the notice itself has been construed to service of notice as also the track report has been taken into consideration. 36. Further from the order sheet it is evident that the respondent/husband has not filed any proper proof of service of summons upon the petitioner wife. Further there is no proof of mode of effective service of summons upon the petitioner wife. 37. Further it has been contended that the appellant wife is resident of another state i.e. "Parshurampur, House No. 431/?, ?.? + P.S- Ali Nagar, District- Chandauli (Uttar Pradesh)" and Learned Family Court has not taken any effective service of summons through the competent Civil Court wherein petitioner wife is residing. 38. 37. Further it has been contended that the appellant wife is resident of another state i.e. "Parshurampur, House No. 431/?, ?.? + P.S- Ali Nagar, District- Chandauli (Uttar Pradesh)" and Learned Family Court has not taken any effective service of summons through the competent Civil Court wherein petitioner wife is residing. 38. Further from perusal of impugned judgment it is evident that in the said impugned judgment also it is nowhere discussed that when and where effective service of summons has taken place. Further in para -3 and 13 of the impugned judgment it has been stated that defendant/wife has not appeared even after proper service of notice/summon but in the said paragraph it is no where discussed that how the learned Family Court has reached to its subjective satisfaction regarding the proper service of summon/notice. 39. This Court, thereto, is of the view that the approach which has been taken by the learned Family Judge cannot be said to be just and proper that too in a case where the decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed; seriously prejudicing the interest of the appellant-wife. 40. Herein the appellant/respondent had asserted that in absence of knowledge she could not filed her written statement opposing the prayer of plaintiff/husband (respondent). 41. Further, the respondent husband has filed divorce petition making serious allegations against the wife/appellant. 42. Having regard to the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant-wife, we are of the view that the Family Court ought to have taken all possible steps in effecting service of notice/summon upon the appellant as per the mandate of the order V of the CPC and so as to afford opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter on merits by filing a written statement and by cross-examination. 43. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove it is considered view of this Court that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge suffers from noncompliance of cardinal principle of natural justice. 44. It needs to refer herein that the case which is related to the matrimonial dispute concerning annulment of marriage or divorce proceeding is a serious matter and it connects entire life of husband and wife against whom a decree for declaration of nullity or divorce has been sought. 44. It needs to refer herein that the case which is related to the matrimonial dispute concerning annulment of marriage or divorce proceeding is a serious matter and it connects entire life of husband and wife against whom a decree for declaration of nullity or divorce has been sought. In the said matter, the court should not follow mechanical approach for compliance of issuance of notice rather the court should effectively take all statutory provision into account which is expected for appearance of the party. 45. This Court, in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, is of the view that the learned Family Judge while posting the matter for ex-parte hearing has not effectively followed all recourse available in the statute and, as such, the impugned judgment and decree need interference on the ground of providing an opportunity to the defendant wife to defend herself (the appellant herein). 46. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the judgment passed by the learned Family Court, therefore, needs interference. 47. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.04.2024 and 27.04.2024, respectively passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 604 of 2023, is hereby quashed and set aside. 48. In consequence thereof, the matter is remitted before the concerned learned Family Court for consideration of the issue afresh, in accordance with law. 49. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/wife has undertaken before this Court that the appellant-wife will put her appearance before the concerned Family Court by filing Vakalatnama within 15 days from date of receipt of the order. 50. Let the issue be decided without any unnecessary delay. 51. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 52. The trial court record be sent back forthwith.