IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 7 of 2009() ----------------------------- CMP.1130/08 IN MC.83/2008 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ SADANANDAN, S/O.SWAMINATHAN, PAYYUR HOUSE, MANJALOOR POST ETHANUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. NOW WORKING AT ARABI ENERTECH KSC PO.BOX NO.9831, AHMADI -61009, KUWAIT. BY ADV. MR.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR MR.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- SMITHA, D/O.NARAYANAN, SUNITHA NIVAS COYALMANNAM, KANNANUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 7 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.M.A.169/2009 IN R.P.(FC).7/2009 DISMISSED 16/02/2009. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 7 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order dismissing the prayer to set aside the exparte order passed in C.M.P.1130/08 in M.C.83/08. Admittedly the notice issued from the Court came back as unclaimed. The postal endorsement suggested that the intimation was dropped. The Court held that service was declared as sufficient as the notice was not claimed from the Post Office. 2. The Family Court had been very technical. It is the fundamental rule or principle that as far as possible any summons issued in a case has to be served personally on the person who will be affected and the other modes are only when such an attempt is made and it is becoming impossible. Admittedly the revision petitioner herein was employed abroad and he was not available when the notice was tendered in his house. What is written in the postal endorsement is that notice is dropped. I do not know what is R.P(F.C.) NO. 7 OF 2009 -:2:- meant by the word dropping of a notice. Just because a notice is dropped in the premises and the postal officer leaves the place, the Court assumes that it will be sufficient and there has been refusal to accept the notice and passed an order. Certainly, it cannot be and it should not be. Therefore I am convinced that it is a case where an opportunity has to be given and therefore I allow the application for setting aside the order and direct the Family Court to consider the matter afresh on merits and dispose it of in accordance with law. The R.P.(F.C) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-