Cpc order 5 rule 15

The summons served on the father in law of the respondent, and the father in law is residing in the same residence, it can be treated as valid service. 

It is a valid service to the defendant.

However, the summons must have been served by "process server" and not "bailiff", recheck.

What is the context for this query? The posting suggests deeper issues.

Kindly refer to Order 5 Rule 15 of CPC:

15. Where service may be on an adult member of defendant’s family - where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence & there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made to any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with the defendant.

Explanation – a servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this rule.

Thus, service of summons on the father-in-law of the defendant who resides in the same house as the address given by the defendant in my view amounts to sufficient service as the father-in-law of the defendant is a member of the family and also an adult.

In the case, G. Kavitha v/s Union of India [W.P. (MD) No. 2949 of 2004], the court stated that, there shall be no discrimination among the relations listed under rule 15 while serving the summons in compliance with law.