Delhi High Court: refusing to accept summons doesn't stop valid service by affixation under the CPC

The Delhi High Court has refused to disturb a Family Court order that proceeded against a wife ex parte in her husband's divorce petition, holding that her refusal to accept summons did not defeat service on her. In HMA No. 1929/2022 before the Principal Judge, Family Court (West), Tis Hazari, process servers reported that the wife herself refused to accept summons on one occasion, and that her mother refused on a later occasion when the wife was not home; on both occasions the summons were then affixed at the residence. The Family Court held this complied with Order V Rules 15 and 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and rejected her application to recall the ex parte order made against her. She challenged that rejection before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the petition, holding that the Family Court had examined the process servers' reports and the full sequence of orders before concluding that service was valid, and that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit it to re-appreciate the same evidence as an appellate court would; interference requires patent illegality, a jurisdictional error, or perversity, none of which was shown here. The Court also referred to Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, on avoiding procrastination in matrimonial proceedings. The petition was dismissed.