C. R. No. 3058 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 3058 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 22, 2010 Amit Hooda .... Petitioner Vs. Manju Hooda .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Pawan Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has arisen out of a dispute between petitioner husband and respondent wife relating to guardianship and custody of their minor son, for which petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent, under Sections 6 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is pending before Guardian Judge, Chandigarh. Respondent was proceeded ex-parte in the said petition. She moved application for setting aside the said ex-parte proceedings. While the said application was fixed for 17.07.2009, respondent did not appear in C. R. No. 3058 of 2010 2 the trial court and was again proceeded ex-parte. Respondent moved application for setting aside the said order dated 17.07.2009 on the ground that wrong date of hearing was noted. The said application has been allowed by the Guardian Judge vide order dated 11.02.2010 (Annexure P-1), which is under challenge in the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent is intentionally delaying the disposal of the case. It is stated that both parties are residents of Rohtak and the petition was also pending at Rohtak and on respondent's application, the petition has been transferred to Chandigarh. Respondent claimed in the application that she is now residing at Gurgaon and she has the minor school going son with her. She faces inconvenience in coming to Chandigarh on every date of hearing. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Courts are normally liberal in setting aside ex-parte proceedings. In the instant case, application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings ordered on 17.07.2009 was moved without delay. Of course, earlier also the respondent had been proceeded ex-parte and her conduct thus shows that she might be delaying the proceedings. Nevertheless, she has to be allowed to contest the case which she is already contesting. However, the Guardian Judge shall ensure that there is no C. R. No. 3058 of 2010 3 undue delay in further progress of the case on account of conduct of respondent and if the respondent intentionally delays the trial of the case, the Guardian Judge shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine. July 22, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE