HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P. No. 2368 OF 2008 Friday, the Twelfth day of November, Two Thousand and Ten Between Smt. Vegiraju Sunitha Petitioner AND Vegiraju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju Respondent ORAL ORDER: Heard both the counsel. The petitioner is respondent in O.P. No. 728 of 2006 filed by her husband – respondent herein, on the file of Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, seeking divorce and the case was posted on 21.2.2007 for her appearance. It is stated that she filed M.C. No. 166 of 2006 claiming maintenance for herself and her son, which was posted to 11.12.2006 and from 11.12.2006, it was adjourned to 28.12.2006 and again to 12.1.2007. It is stated that the respondent herein appeared before the court and agreed to take back the divorce petition filed by him, when the matter was posted for reconciliation on 31.7.2007. The Maintenance Case was posted to 19.3.2006 for reporting compromise and the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that her husband will withdraw the divorce petition and, therefore, she could not attend the court on 21.2.2007, on which date, she was set exparte and an exparte order was passed on 26.4.2007.She filed an application to set aside the exparte decree with an application to condone the delay of 59 days. The said I.A. No. 561 of 2007 seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 24.6.2007 is dismissed by order dated 28.2.2008, against which this Civil Revision Petition is filed. Counter was filed disputing the averments made in the application for condonation of delay but the other material fact of filing the maintenance case and adjournments of cases and appearance of the husband in the maintenance case, are not at all disputed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the delay was properly explained showing sufficient cause, but the trial court erroneously dismissed the said application. As the matter involves matrimonial rights, if the delay sought to be condoned, is not condoned, there will be serious consequences of obtaining exparte decree. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial court ought to have liberally considered the condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under Revision is set aside and I.A. No. 561 of 2007 in O.P. No. 728 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, stands allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah November 12, 2010 MAS