In Purnima @ Neha v. Gagan Kumar (CM(M) 2457/2026, decided 6 November 2026), Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar of the High Court of Delhi dismissed a wife’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against a Family Court order refusing to recall ex parte proceedings in her husband’s divorce case. The process-server’s reports recorded her refusing summons, with affixation at the gate, and a further attempt served through her mother; she moved for recall only after the evidence had been recorded, more than a year after being set ex parte. The judgment is a compact lesson in two disciplines: the law of service under Order V of the CPC, and the narrow supervisory character of Article 227.
The case in one view
| Case | Purnima @ Neha v. Gagan Kumar, CM(M) 2457/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar J |
| Decided | 6 November 2026 |
| Provisions | Article 227, Constitution; Order V Rules 15 and 17, Order IX Rules 7 and 13, CPC |
| Outcome | Petition dismissed; ex parte proceedings in the divorce case undisturbed |
The background
In the husband’s divorce petition before the Family Court (West), Tis Hazari, the wife was proceeded ex parte in September 2024. The record was not thin: process-server reports recorded her refusing summons, with affixation at the gate; another attempt recorded her mother’s refusal; and service had also been attempted through the District Judge, Ghaziabad, where she resided. Only in December 2025 — after the husband’s evidence had been recorded — did she apply under Order IX to be relieved of the ex parte order. The Family Court rejected the application in October 2026, and she invoked Article 227, contending that service through the mother and by affixation was invalid.
The service question
Order V of the CPC anticipates exactly this pattern. Rule 15 permits service on an adult member of the family where the defendant cannot be found; Rule 17 directs the serving officer, where the defendant or such person refuses to sign the acknowledgment or cannot be found, to affix a copy of the summons on the outer door and return the original with a report of the circumstances. The Family Court had examined those reports along with the order-sheets, and the High Court found the service valid under Rules 15 and 17. Refusal, in short, is not a shield; the law treats the litigant who turns the process server away as served.
Article 227 is supervision, not a second appeal
From the judgment: “this Court is unable to discern any infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Family Court” — and, on delay, “Dilatory tactics are not to be encouraged as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
The supervisory jurisdiction reaches jurisdictional error, patent illegality and perversity. It does not re-appreciate the process-server’s reports or re-weigh the sufficiency of the petitioner’s explanation — those assessments belonged to the Family Court, which had made them on the record. With Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena supplying the background norm of expedition in matrimonial proceedings, the fifteen-month gap between the ex parte order and the recall application, spanning the recording of evidence, was fatal.
What the decision means in practice
The wider frame
Ex parte matrimonial decrees and orders generate a steady stream of recall and supervisory litigation in Delhi, usually fought over the same two questions this case presents: was the service real, and was the delay explained. The decision aligns with the settled trend — service rules are applied as written, including their refusal-and-affixation machinery, and Article 227 is kept to its constitutional width. The practical moral for litigants is older than the CPC itself: the courtroom consequences of ignoring a summons are always worse than the summons.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is service complete if the party refuses to take the summons?
Yes. Under Order V Rule 15 CPC, service may be made on an adult family member where the defendant cannot be found, and under Rule 17, where the defendant or such person refuses to sign the acknowledgment, the serving officer affixes a copy on the outer door and reports the circumstances. Refusal recorded by the process server, followed by affixation, is valid service — a litigant cannot defeat process by declining to accept it.
Why did the recall application fail?
Timing and conduct. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte in September 2024 and moved under Order IX only in December 2025, after evidence had been recorded. The Family Court examined the process-server reports, the order-sheets and her conduct, and found no sufficient cause; the High Court found no perversity in that assessment.
What can the High Court do under Article 227?
Supervise, not re-hear. The court reiterated that Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate: it corrects jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity, and does not re-appreciate evidence. Where the Family Court has considered the material and reached a tenable view, the supervisory jurisdiction does not substitute a different one.
Do matrimonial cases get special indulgence on delay?
No. Citing the mandate of expeditious disposal in matrimonial matters recognised in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, the court held that the matrimonial character of a case does not excuse dilatoriness. In the judgment's words, dilatory tactics are not to be encouraged.