1. By this Family Court Appeal, original respondent wife is challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 10th February, 2012 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. A-311/2011, which was G.A.Ghule [P.A.] filed by the present respondent husband, seeking dissolution of marriage by decree U/Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [ In short, the "Act of 1955".]

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the present petitioner wife. He contended that the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad erred in passing ex parte decree for divorce within a short period of 4 1/2 months of institution of the proceeding by the respondent-husband, by accepting the report of the bailiff that he attempted to serve the summons upon the respondent therein, in court premises, and she refused to accept the same. According to the learned counsel for the present appellant the wife has no occasion to remain present in the premises of the Family Court, Aurangabad; so as to enable the Bailiff of the Family Court to effect service of summons upon her.

3. In the present matter, the learned counsel for respondent husband did not appear when we heard the appeal yesterday i.e. 21.12.2014 and today also. Initially, when the learned counsel for respondent-husband was appearing in the matter, this court attempted to settle the controversy between the parties by referring the same to the Mediator. However, we have received the report of the Mediator that mediation failed.

4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have perused the Record & Proceedings of the Petition No. A-311/11 in order to satisfy us regarding legality or otherwise of service of summons on the present appellant -wife. Perusal of the record shows that, Respondent husband instituted proceedings U/Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of " the Act of 1955" for divorce on the ground of desertion before the Family Court, Aurangabad on 19th September, 2011. On that day, the learned judge of Family Court issued the notice to respondent -wife returnable on 7th October, 2011. Record further shows that, on 21st September, 2011 summons was sent through the Bailiff on the address of wife mentioned in the petition. It was returned back unserved with report of the Process Server / Bailiff dated 17th October, 2011 stating that original respondent wife is not found on the address mentioned in the summons i.e. N-12, B-Sector. The report of Process Server / Bailiff Shri. Mhaske (Exh.5) further states that local residents have stated that respondent is not residing at Sector B of N-12.

5. On perusal of first order sheet, we found that, date on the same is incorrectly recorded by the Family Court as 17.11.2011 instead of 17.10.2011. The matter was then adjourned for return of notice to 17th November, 2011 by allowing application of original petitioner husband for issuing fresh notice. On 17/11/2011 petition was taken up and initially it was recorded in the order sheet that summons is returned back unserved. Thereafter, there is an endorsement on the order sheet that, ex parte order is passed on Exh.No. 1 and then Petition came to be fixed for evidence of original petitioner-husband on 20.12.2011. In this way, matter proceeded ex parte against the original respondent -wife and ultimately decree of divorce U/Section 13(1)(i-b) of " the Act of 1955" on the ground of desertion came to be passed by the learned Judge, Family court, Aurangabad on 10th February, 2012. Same is impugned before this court, in the present Family Court Appeal.

6. The question which falls for determina........