IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2469 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.702/2011 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SHAJI JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, MECHIRACKAL HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O., VELLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STELLA SHAJI, W/O.SHAJI JOSEPH, AGED 47, MECHIRACKAL HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O., VELLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 501. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN OP(FC).2469/11 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR DIVORCE BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT DATED 2.6.2011. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.7.2011 IN OP.702/11 BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- O.P(FC).No.2469 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. Having regard to the order being issued hereunder, notice to the respondent dispensed with preserving his right for re-hearing of this matter, if aggrieved. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has filed Ext.P1 application for divorce. We see from the pleadings in that petition that the couple has a disabled child. We do not express anything on the merits of the matter. We see that the challenge in this original petition is against the order of the family court by which the case has been adjourned to 12.8.2011 ordering that since the respondent wife is absent, notice to her may be repeated through her father. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the respondent’s father died two years ago. He further points out that the respondent OP(FC).2469/11 2 had also been served with notice. We are clear in our mind that it is not for us to verify the postal articles or other materials to ascertain whether notice has been served on the respondent in accordance with law. Since it is a matrimonial proceeding for divorce, it would be open to the Family Court to take recourse to appropriate modes of substituted service if it is not satisfied of service of notice on the party respondents. We, therefore, direct the petitioner to make available a copy of this judgment before the learned Judge of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor so that the due procedure would be followed in that regard, if necessary, even by recalling Ext.P2. The original petition is ordered accordingly. Communicate copy to the Family Court, Kottayam. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge. kkb.1/8.