IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5599 of 2009 BETWEEN J. Sugunamma. ... PETITIONER AND J. Rama Rao. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision arises out of a matrimonial matter where the petitioner/wife is seeking to set aside the ex parte decree of divorce and had moved such an application along with an application being I.A.No.1152 of 2007 in O.P.No.266 of 2007 seeking condonation of delay of 24 days. That application, however, was dismissed by the Court below under order dated 04.08.2009. Hence, this revision. 2. Petitioner and respondent have been residing in the same house for 30 years, as husband and wife. It appears that the son of the petitioner was not getting along with the respondent and he appears to have performed love marriage, which is not to the liking of the respondent. The respondent, therefore, appears to have insisted the petitioner also not to permit their son to reside with them, which resulted in discord between the petitioner and the respondent leading to the respondent filing an application for divorce before the Family Court. 3. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the aforesaid application it is stated that after receiving the summons in the OP she attended the Court, then the respondent/husband agreed to get the divorce petition dismissed as not pressed and continue to lead the marital life. She further states that she believed his assurance and did not attend further hearing but was surprised to find the ex parte decree having been passed. The respondent/husband filed a counter stating that the petitioner attended a domestic violence case pending between them and as such, cannot be said to have no knowledge of the Court proceedings. The Court below having accepted the said version of the respondent/husband and having disbelieved the cause shown by the petitioner/wife, declined to condone the delay. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent though served, nobody appeared. 5. It is evident from the copy of the divorce petition O.P.No.266 of 2007 that 30 years of marriage is now subjected to divorce proceedings and the primary cause mentioned in the OP against the petitioner herein is that she helped the son of the parties in more than one way and the misdeeds and the mischief of the son, apparently, resulted in discord between the parties leading to the divorce petition. Be that as it may, the petitioner/wife has stated with sufficient details the reasons as to why she could not attend the Court after initial appearance, as she states that she believed her husband/respondent. Obviously, she had filed the present application only on coming to know of the ex parte decree, which she truthfully attributes to her husband/respondent. The counter filed by the respondent referring to a domestic violence proceedings shows that those were proceedings of the year 2006 whereas the present OP was filed in September 2007. Even otherwise, a matrimonial case, that too relating to a marriage of more than 30 years, ought not have been decided in ex parte proceedings, as in the present case. As the petitioner is shut out from participation on account of circumstances, which cannot be said to be unusual, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and allow the petitioner’s application being I.A.No.1152 of 2007. 6. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The delay shall stand condoned and the application to set aside the ex parte decree shall now be considered by the Family Court afresh in accordance with law. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 20, 2011 DSK