The Delhi High Court has dismissed a wife’s challenge to a Family Court order that refused to recall the order proceeding against her ex parte. She had applied for the recall on 20.12.2025, about 15 months after the Family Court proceeded ex parte on 10.09.2024. By then, the husband’s evidence had been recorded and the case was listed for ex parte final arguments. The Court held that the matrimonial nature of a case cannot, by itself, be a reason to set aside findings on valid service that the Family Court reached after examining the record.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar found no jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity in the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court (West), Tis Hazari Courts. The wife had challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Background
The husband, Gagan Kumar, filed proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court. Summons sent to the wife by speed post came back unserved.
A process server reported that for the hearing on 06.03.2024, the wife met him, refused to accept the summons, and he then affixed it on the main gate. On 05.07.2024, another process server visited the address. The wife’s mother told him the wife had gone out, refused to accept the summons, and he affixed it there as well.
The wife did not appear for counselling, and the Family Court proceeded against her ex parte on 10.09.2024. The husband then filed his evidence and examined his witnesses. On 20.12.2025, the wife applied to have the ex parte order recalled. The Family Court rejected her application on 01.10.2026.
Arguments
Advocate Amit Singh, appearing for the wife through video conferencing, argued that service on her mother could not count as valid service on her. He also argued that the later affixation of summons, in the facts of the case, did not amount to valid service. He sought an opportunity for her to file a written statement and contest the case on merits.
No one appeared for the husband.
Court’s Findings
The High Court noted that the same grounds had been specifically raised before the Family Court and considered there. It found that the Family Court had examined the process servers’ reports, the sequence of orders and the wife’s conduct. The Court observed that “the finding regarding valid service is not founded upon an isolated circumstance but emerges from a consideration of the entire sequence of events and the material available on the record.”
The Court also noted that the Family Court had looked at the wife’s conduct. Even though service had been treated as valid, she did not enter appearance and stayed away from counselling. The application for recall came only after the case had moved substantially forward.
The Court held that the wife’s submissions were, in substance, an attempt to have the same material appreciated afresh. It said: “This Court cannot be called upon to undertake a second round of adjudication on the question of service, particularly when the learned Family Court has considered the same and recorded reasons in support of its conclusion.”
The Court acknowledged that the case arose from matrimonial litigation and that an ex parte decision could affect the parties’ rights. However, it held that “the nature of the proceedings, by itself, cannot be a ground to disregard the procedural history of the case or to unsettle findings which have been returned by the learned Family Court after due consideration of the material on record.”
The Family Court had relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 353. Referring to it, the High Court noted: “While such observations cannot dispense with the requirement of ensuring due process, they reinforce the need for proceedings before Family Courts to be conducted with due expedition and without avoidable delays.”
Outcome
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it along with the pending applications.
Case Title: Purnima @ Neha v. Gagan Kumar
Case No.: CM(M) 2457/2026
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date: 06.11.2026
