{"id":363225,"date":"2025-10-10T09:30:41","date_gmt":"2025-10-10T04:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=363225"},"modified":"2025-10-14T09:58:25","modified_gmt":"2025-10-14T04:28:25","slug":"rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/","title":{"rendered":"Rajasthan HC holds notice returned &#8216;unclaimed&#8217; not valid service; Sets aside ex-parte divorce decree"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Rajasthan High Court:<\/span> In a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant husband against the ex-parte decree dated 15-09-2023 passed by the Family Court which allowed the respondent-wife&#8217;s application under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001543733\" target=\"_blank\">13<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726956\" target=\"_blank\">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (&#8216;1955 Act&#8217;) and granted a decree of divorce, the Division Bench of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Dinesh Mehta*<\/span> and Sandeep Taneja, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that the service of summons, which was returned with the postal endorsement &#8216;unclaimed&#8217;, did not constitute a valid and effective service in the absence of tender to the addressee or his authorized agent. The Court set aside the ex-parte decree, and the matter was remanded to the Family Court for fresh adjudication.<\/p>\n<h3>Background<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The respondent-wife filed an application under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001543733\" target=\"_blank\">13<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726956\" target=\"_blank\">1955 Act<\/a> seeking a divorce decree. The Family Court issued summons to the appellant-husband. The summons sent via registered post was returned with the postal endorsement &#8216;unclaimed&#8217;. Subsequently, the Family Court, vide order dated 19-04-2023, held that the service of summons on the appellant was complete. Consequently, the appellant was proceeded ex-parte, leading to the impugned ex-parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 15-09-2023. Aggrieved the appellant filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n<h3>Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court observed that the Family Court has drawn presumption of service of the notice, based on endorsement &#8216;refusal&#8217; found on the envelope, which was sent to the appellant. Though the notice was sent on the correct address, but the note on the envelope does not show as to who refused to take the notice.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further observed there was endorsement of the Postman going to appellant&#8217;s address total 6 times. It was true that a seal has been affixed on the said envelope on which the black mark for &#8216;refused&#8217; has been ticked. But if the appellant&#8217;s family member or mother had to refuse the same, they could have at the first instance refused it. The fact that the envelope shows remark of approaching the addressee on six occasions is indicative of the fact that the addressee was not at the address, as claimed by him.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">It was clear from the facts that the notice was offered to the mother of the appellant, who had in express terms stated that the appellant (her son) had gone to Ahmedabad and is not available in the house. The Court observed that such stand taken by the appellant&#8217;s mother could not be considered as refusal when the notice was not at all offered to the notice i.e. the appellant.<\/p>\n<p>The Court observed that,<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;A refusal for the purpose of service of notice should be taken to be a sufficient service, if such refusal is by the addressee or by the noticee himself\/herself. A denial by any other person other than the noticee or his agent, including the mother to receive or accept the notice on someone else&#8217;s behalf cannot be said to be a refusal in the eye of law.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523597\" target=\"_blank\">V Rule 9(5)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (&#8216;CPC&#8217;) states that when a defendant refuses to accept the summons, the court, after hearing, may declare that the summons has been duly served. However, the Court drew a critical distinction between an envelope returned with the endorsement &#8216;refused&#8217; and one returned with &#8216;unclaimed&#8217;. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had authorised his mother as his agent to receive the postal article on his behalf.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that sending of notice is not synonymous with its receipt, as giving is only a process of which receipt is the culmination. Even if it is assumed that the notice was duly sent on the correct address by the registered post, it would be highly improbable for the addressee to be aware of its content when the same was neither tendered to him nor to his authorized agent, when is a pre-condition under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523597\" target=\"_blank\">V Rule 9<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that the Supreme Court in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/u62j2t5K\" target=\"_blank\">(1989) 2 SCC 602<\/a>, held that there is a presumption of service only when the letter is returned with the postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same. The presumption is rebuttable. The Supreme Court had emphasized the difference between &#8216;refused to accept&#8217; and &#8216;unclaimed&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The term &#8216;unclaimed&#8217; merely indicates that the addressee was not available to receive the post after attempts by the postal authority and does not establish that the notice was tendered to the addressee or his authorized agent. The Court noted that tender is a precondition under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523597\" target=\"_blank\">V Rule 9<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\" target=\"_blank\">CPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court distinguished the judgment relied upon by the respondent of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/QHjm47BJ\" target=\"_blank\">(2007) 6 SCC 555<\/a>, noting that the statutory provisions involved therein, Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001544366\" target=\"_blank\">138(b)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726957\" target=\"_blank\">Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a> and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, were clearly distinguishable as they deal with the aspect of sending\/tendering of notice, which is not synonymous with its receipt. The Court reiterated the view that giving is only a process of which receipt is the culmination.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court observed that the burden to rebut the presumption raised under section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001516696\" target=\"_blank\">114<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726934\" target=\"_blank\">Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a>, was concerned, the same had been effectively discharged by the appellant as on previous six occasions as the notice was never tendered upon the appellant or his authorized agent to qualify it as a valid refusal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court held that the ex-parte divorce decree passed by the Family Court was unsustainable in the eyes of law. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 15-09-2023, and remanded the matter to the Family Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to the appellant to file his reply and proceed with the case afresh in accordance with the law.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">X v. Y, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/tgXFv1Ns\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2025 SCC OnLine Raj 5080<\/a>, decided on 19-09-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment authored by: Justice Dinesh Mehta<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Appellant(s):<\/span> Kshitij Vyas with Sukhadev<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Respondent(s):<\/span> Siddharth Mewara with Ramawatar Singh<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;A refusal for the purpose of service of notice should be taken to be a sufficient service, if such refusal is by the addressee or by the noticee himself\/herself.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":363226,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[32246,90630,90628,90629,2575,90631,48486,90627],"class_list":["post-363225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-ex-parte-divorce-decree","tag-hindu-marriage-act-section-13","tag-order-v-rule-9-cpc","tag-presumption-of-service","tag-Rajasthan_High_Court","tag-refused-v-unclaimed","tag-service-of-summons","tag-unclaimed-notice"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Raj HC: Notice returned &#039;unclaimed&#039; is not valid service | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court while setting aside an ex-parte divorce decree held that summons returned &#039;unclaimed&#039; does not constitute valid service under CPC.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajasthan HC holds notice returned &#039;unclaimed&#039; not valid service; Sets aside ex-parte divorce decree\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court while setting aside an ex-parte divorce decree held that summons returned &#039;unclaimed&#039; does not constitute valid service under CPC.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-10-10T04:00:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-14T04:28:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Rajasthan HC holds notice returned &#039;unclaimed&#039; not valid service; Sets aside ex-parte divorce decree\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"Rajasthan HC holds notice returned &#8216;unclaimed&#8217; not valid service; Sets aside ex-parte divorce decree\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-10T04:00:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-14T04:28:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1015,\"commentCount\":1,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Ex-Parte Divorce Decree\",\"Hindu Marriage Act Section 13\",\"Order V Rule 9 CPC\",\"Presumption of Service\",\"Rajasthan High Court\",\"Refused v. Unclaimed\",\"Service of Summons\",\"Unclaimed Notice\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/\",\"name\":\"Raj HC: Notice returned 'unclaimed' is not valid service | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-10T04:00:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-14T04:28:25+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Rajasthan High Court while setting aside an ex-parte divorce decree held that summons returned 'unclaimed' does not constitute valid service under CPC.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Unclaimed Notice Not Valid Service\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/10\\\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajasthan HC holds notice returned &#8216;unclaimed&#8217; not valid service; Sets aside ex-parte divorce decree\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raj HC: Notice returned 'unclaimed' is not valid service | SCC Times","description":"Rajasthan High Court while setting aside an ex-parte divorce decree held that summons returned 'unclaimed' does not constitute valid service under CPC.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajasthan HC holds notice returned 'unclaimed' not valid service; Sets aside ex-parte divorce decree","og_description":"Rajasthan High Court while setting aside an ex-parte divorce decree held that summons returned 'unclaimed' does not constitute valid service under CPC.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-10-10T04:00:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-10-14T04:28:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Rajasthan HC holds notice returned 'unclaimed' not valid service; Sets aside ex-parte divorce decree","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"Rajasthan HC holds notice returned &#8216;unclaimed&#8217; not valid service; Sets aside ex-parte divorce decree","datePublished":"2025-10-10T04:00:41+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-14T04:28:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/"},"wordCount":1015,"commentCount":1,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.webp","keywords":["Ex-Parte Divorce Decree","Hindu Marriage Act Section 13","Order V Rule 9 CPC","Presumption of Service","Rajasthan High Court","Refused v. Unclaimed","Service of Summons","Unclaimed Notice"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/","name":"Raj HC: Notice returned 'unclaimed' is not valid service | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.webp","datePublished":"2025-10-10T04:00:41+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-14T04:28:25+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Rajasthan High Court while setting aside an ex-parte divorce decree held that summons returned 'unclaimed' does not constitute valid service under CPC.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Unclaimed Notice Not Valid Service"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/rajasthan-hc-unclaimed-notice-not-valid-service-ex-parte-divorce-set-aside\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajasthan HC holds notice returned &#8216;unclaimed&#8217; not valid service; Sets aside ex-parte divorce decree"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Unclaimed-Notice-Not-Valid-Service.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":215470,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/07\/utt-hc-no-higher-court-can-direct-a-subordinate-court-to-pass-judgment-or-decree-in-favor-of-either-of-the-parties\/","url_meta":{"origin":363225,"position":0},"title":"Utt HC | No higher Court can direct a subordinate court to pass judgment or decree in favor of either of the parties","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 7, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J. dismissed a writ petition where mandamus was sought to direct the Principal Judge of Family Court to decide the matter of petitioner under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and grant a decree of divorce based on mutual consent. The factual matrix\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":218731,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/28\/raj-hc-decree-of-divorce-granted-in-light-of-compromise-arrived-between-the-parties\/","url_meta":{"origin":363225,"position":1},"title":"Raj HC | Decree of Divorce granted in light of compromise arrived between the parties","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 28, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Narendra Singh Dhaddha and Mohammad Rafiq, JJ. allowed a decree of divorce which was filed through a joint application under Section 13 B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the present case, a joint application was filed by the husband and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":73451,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/09\/26\/once-the-statutory-period-for-preferring-appeal-against-divorce-expires-a-party-can-go-for-second-marriage-without-any-legal-hassles\/","url_meta":{"origin":363225,"position":2},"title":"Once the statutory period for preferring appeal against divorce expires, a party can go for second marriage without any legal hassles","author":"Saba","date":"September 26, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Patna High Court: While answering a plethora of important questions regarding the sustainability of a decree for judicial seperation, the Division Bench of I.A. Ansari, C.J., and Nilu Agarwal, J., observed that a decree of judicial separation only lays down the foundation for making an application for the grant of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":273156,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/06\/chhattisgarh-high-court-customary-divorce-separation-valid-divorce-when-custom-is-proved-hindu-marriage-act-code-of-civil-procedure-irretrievable-breakdown-aeof-marriage\/","url_meta":{"origin":363225,"position":3},"title":"Chhattisgarh High Court | Customary divorce reduced into writing followed by separation would be a valid divorce when custom is proved ancient","author":"Editor","date":"September 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Chhattisgarh High Court: In a case related to an appeal filed against the decision of the family Court, whereby an application filed by the husband seeking divorce was dismissed, Goutam Bhaduri, J. held that the marriage must be stand dissolved under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Chhattisgarh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291055,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/01\/no-distinction-in-contested-and-ex-parte-divorce-decree-under-hma-section-15-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":363225,"position":4},"title":"Section 15 of HMA does not make any distinction between a contested decree and an ex parte decree; Delhi High Court upholds second marriage of husband","author":"Arunima","date":"May 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court observed that an ex parte decree of divorce also it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against such decree within the period of limitation.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219465,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/12\/kar-hc-decree-of-divorce-set-aside-in-light-of-no-statutory-provisions-followed-by-family-court-while-granting-the-same\/","url_meta":{"origin":363225,"position":5},"title":"Kar HC | Decree of divorce set aside in light of no statutory provisions followed by Family Court while granting the same","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 12, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: The Division Bench of S.N. Satyanarayana and P.G.M. Patil, JJ. allowed this appeal and remanded the matter back to the Principal Judge, Family Court. In this instant case, the Respondent \u2013 wife in M.C. No. 268 of 2016 before the Family Court, Hubballi has appealed impugning the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/363225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=363225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/363225\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/363226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=363225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=363225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=363225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}