IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. : 1472 of 2025 Decided on : 30.06.2026 Harpal Kaur .…Appellant. Versus Arshdeep Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Pratiksha Chandel, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge CMP(M) No. 1472 of 2025 This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 1 year 4 months and 13 days in filing the appeal against judgment and decree dated 30.03.2024, passed in H.M.A. Petition No. 108-S/3 of 2023, titled as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:26338 ) Arshdeep Singh Vs. Harpal Kaur, decided by Principal Judge (Family Court) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., whereby petition preferred by respondent under Section 13 (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage has been allowed and marriage between the parties have been dissolved by way of decree of divorce. 2. The main ground in this application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against decree of dissolution of marriage, is that the applicant-appellant was never served in the proceedings before Family Court. 3. Record was requisitioned. 4. Perusal of record indicates that respondent filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce in the Family Court, Shimla, on 26.05.2023. 5. Notice was issued to the applicant-appellant, returnable on 04.07.2023. On 04.07.2023, it was reported that the notice issued to the respondent had not been received back whereupon Family Court again directed the respondent (petitioner before Family Court) to take fresh steps for the service of respondent before 3 ( 2026:HHC:26338 ) Family Court (present applicant) through ordinary process as well as speed post within a week for issuance of notice for next date i.e. 11.08.2023. 6. On 11.08.2023, it was reported by the Civil Ahlmad/Clerk/Dealing hand that notices were issued through ordinary process as well as speed post on 14.07.2023, but with further report that notices were not received back. 7. Despite that on 11.08.2023, Family Court, Shimla, recorded that since respondent (present applicant-appellant) did not appear despite due notice, and the case was passed over with a direction to be called again after respite. After some time, the case was again taken up, applicant-appellant was proceeded ex parte by considering her to have been served. 8. Undisputably in the petition, filed for dissolution of marriage, the address of applicant- appellant was mentioned, which was address of her matrimonial residence i.e. the address of residence of respondent husband, whereas dissolution of marriage was prayed on the ground that the applicant-appellant 4 ( 2026:HHC:26338 ) had left the house without even informing the respondent and she had switched off the phone, meaning thereby that she was not residing with the respondent or with in laws and therefore, mentioning of her address as residing in the matrimonial house i.e. house of the respondent/husband was a mischief. 9. Not only address was mentioned wrongly, but record reveals that no notice was ever issued through ordinary process. There is no document indicating filing of process fee on record, at any point of time taking steps for the service of applicant herein through ordinary process and such notice was ever issued to the applicant (respondent before Family Court). 10. It appears that process fee was filed for the service of respondent (present applicant-appellant) through registered AD/Speed Post, but that was also never posted by the Court Staff but by the Clerk of the Advocate as is evident from the postal receipt placed on record by the counsel representing the respondent in the Family Court under his signature. 5 ( 2026:HHC:26338 ) 11. Perusal of the postal receipt again reflects that letter was addressed to Street No. 33, Bhatinda, but without mentioning complete address. It is also apt to record that House No.1040, Street No. 33, District Bhatinda, is address of house of husband whereas according to husband, applicant-appellant was not residing there. There is no record acknowledging the receipt of Letter/notice by the applicant (respondent before Family Court). 12. From the above facts, it is apparent that there was no service of notice upon the applicant-appellant and therefore ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed without serving her. 13. We would like to record here that upon considering the aforesaid lapse, it appears that the proper procedure is not being adhered to by the Courts below for effective service of parties and therefore, Registrar (Vigilance) is directed to issue appropriate instructions with respect to submission of the reports concerning the issuance and service of notices and reporting the matter and to proceed ex parte after proper 6 ( 2026:HHC:26338 ) service in the District Judiciary including the Family Courts. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, delay in filing the appeal against decree of dissolution of marriage is condoned. Application is allowed and disposed of. FAO (FC) No. 30 of 2026 FAO(FC)ST41495/2025 15. Appeal be registered. 16. For the reasons recorded for allowing the application under Section 5 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the ex parte decree has been passed without valid service of the applicant-appellant and therefore, it deserves to be set aside for deciding afresh by the Family Court. 17. Accordingly, impugned judgment and decree dated 30.03.2024, passed in HMA Petition No. 108-S/3 of 2023, titled as Arshdeep Singh Vs. Harpal Kaur, decided by Principal Judge (Family Court) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court, Shimla, for 7 ( 2026:HHC:26338 ) adjudication afresh with direction to the parties to appear before the Family Court on 27.07.2026. 18. It is made clear that no fresh notice will be issued by the Family Court and in case of absence of the parties, Family Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any 20. Record be sent forthwith. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 30th June, 2026 (sushma)