Blanket Claims Of Fraudulent Notice Service Insufficient To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree: Telangana HC

A litigant cannot evade virtual service of court notices through instant messaging platforms like WhatsApp by merely raising generic allegations of fraud without specifically denying ownership of the mobile numbers involved. The Telangana High Court ruled that knowledge of ongoing marital disputes through pending criminal proceedings further defeats any plea of ignorance regarding divorce proceedings.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara affirmed the trial court's order refusing to set aside an ex parte divorce decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Court was hearing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an NRI husband against the dismissal of his application to recall the ex parte order passed in a divorce petition instituted by his wife.

Court's Analysis on WhatsApp Service and Notice

The High Court carefully scrutinised the trial court docket entries detailing the service of process. The record established that virtual notice was dispatched via WhatsApp from the wife's father's mobile number to the husband's registered UAE cell number, accompanied by submitted proof of delivery.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Such being the case of the appellant, he ought to have given details whether or not Cell No.8374994542 belongs to the father of the respondent herein and whether or not Cell No.+971503866061 (UAE Dubai) belongs to the appellant herein or not. The appellant cannot make a blanket submission about the respondent fraudulently served notice on some other person. There has to be a specific denial about Cell No.8374994542 as to whether or not it belongs to the father of the respondent herein and whether Cell No.+971503866061 (UAE Dubai) belongs to the appellant or not. In the absence of such specific pleadings no weightage can be given to the case of the appellant about the respondent serving notice on some other person with fraudulent intention."

Addressing the argument concerning lack of notice due to foreign employment, the Bench highlighted that the criminal case registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the  Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the husband and his family members precluded any claim of ignorance regarding the marital breakdown and consequent divorce proceedings.

Background

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on May 14, 2021. The respondent-wife alleged persistent demands for additional dowry and harassment, which forced her to leave the matrimonial home shortly after the wedding. She subsequently lodged a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thereafter, she instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Senior Civil Judge, Armoor.

Upon the husband's failure to appear despite virtual service of summons on his WhatsApp number in Dubai, the Trial Court passed an ex parte decree of divorce on December 31, 2024. The husband subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to set aside the ex parte decree, along with a petition to condone a delay of 204 days. The Trial Court dismissed both applications on November 24, 2025.

Challenging the dismissal, the husband approached the High Court contending that he was employed in Dubai and was never served with notice, alleging that the wife had fraudulently reported service on an unknown number. The High Court rejected these contentions, finding no error in the Trial Court's ruling, and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.30 OF 2026
Case Title: Kaligote Swamy v. Kaligote Shranya @ Sunke Shranya
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Golem Sai Chaithanya, learned counsel
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vasudeva Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TEL) 15881