1 WP-4090-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4090 OF 2011 Bhaskar Bhimaji Tribhuvan ..Petitioner Vs Nanda Bhaskar Tribhuvan ..Respondent -- Mr.Sachin Chandan, for petitioner. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 23 rd SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard Mr.Sachin Chandan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2] By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 31 st March, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.7, Mumbai in Civil Misc. Application No.93 of 2010. By that order, the learned Judge condoned the delay 2 years 3 months and 15 days in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “C.P.C.”) 2 WP-4090-11.sxw 3] The petitioner herein filed petition No.A-189 of 2007 in the Family Court at Mumbai, Bandra for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 30(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By judgment and order dated 25 th October, 2007, that petition was allowed and the marriage solamanised between the petitioner and respondent on 20 th May, 1984 was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent, thereafter, filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. and since there was delay in filing that application, she took out Civil Misc. Application No. 93 of 2010 for condonation of delay of delay of 2 years, 13 months and 15 days. In that application, she asserted that the petitioner herein tried to effect the service on her at the address of Bharat Society, Navi Mumbai. However, to the knowledge of the petitioner, the applicant was not residing on that address and was residing at Kalyan. The petitioner did not make any attempt to serve her at Kalyan address. 4] The petitioner opposed that application and contended that the respondent was duly served and despite service, she remained 3 WP-4090-11.sxw absent. It was, therefore, prayed that the application for condonation may be dismissed. 5] After hearing both the sides and after going through the record, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the Bailiff’s report below exhibit 5 dated 24 th March, 2007 indicates that the report specifically mentions that the respondent is not residing at the address given and therefore, the process sent for personal service was returned back by the Bailiff. In so far as service by R.P.A.D. which is at exhibit 6 is concerned, it was returned to the Court on 7 th April, 2007 and there was short endorsement on the said envelope. Having regard to the Bailiff’s report and the report below Exhibit 6, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was not residing at Navi Mumbai and consequently, she was not served with the proceedings of petition No.A-189 of 2007. It is in these circumstances, the learned Judge condoned the delay. I do not find that the learned trial Judge committed any error of law apparent on the face of record. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity. After appreciating the material on record the trial Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent was not duly served. The 4 WP-4090-11.sxw said finding is purely finding of fact. No interference is called for. Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]