THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3881 OF 2008 DATED: 10.03.2011 Between: Bandaru Suseela. .... PETITIONER And Bandaru Venkateswara Rao. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 24.06.2008, in I.A.No.368 of 2007 in O.P.No.353 of 1997 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condoning the delay of 364 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 03.11.1997, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Respondent is the husband of the petitioner. He filed O.P.No.353 of 1997 for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. According to the respondent, petitioner, though served with notices in O.P., remained ex parte and therefore ex parte decree of divorce was granted on 03.11.1997. Petitioner, on the other hand, would contend that she was not aware of passing of the decree and in fact, herself and the respondent have been living together under the same roof till the first week of November, 2005 and she was necked out of the house in the second week of November, 2005 and thereafter she filed M.C.No.231 of 2005 and that maintenance of Rs.1000/- was granted. She filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree in May, 2007. She also filed I.A.No.368 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 364 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 4. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, petitioner alleged that the respondent played fraud and obtained ex parte decree of divorce by furnishing wrong address to avoid service of summons on her. In view of the said allegation, the learned Judge, Family Court ought to have considered giving an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the O.P. filed for divorce, especially when according to the petitioner she has been living along with the respondent under the same roof till November, 2005. 5. Respondent contended before the Family Court that when the petitioner went to the II Town police station to give complaint, on 08.11.2005, she was made aware of the passing of the ex parte decree of divorce and she has not taken any steps immediately thereafter and the delay of nearly one year in filing the application is not duly explained. Respondent has not placed any material on record to show that the petitioner had knowledge of the decree of divorce even on 08.11.2005. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has admitted that she is having knowledge of the ex parte decree on 08.11.2005. Be that as it may, in view of the serious allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent played fraud on her and also on the Court by deliberately furnishing the incorrect address to avoid service of summons on her in the divorce O.P. and obtained ex parte decree of divorce and after the said proceedings also she continued to live with him in the same house till November, 2005, it is considered a fit case where opportunity be given to the petitioner to contest the O.P. and expose the fraud, if any, played by the respondent herein. In that view of the matter, it is considered that the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree be condoned, and the same is accordingly condoned. The impugned order, dismissing the application, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.368 of 2007 stands allowed. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th March, 2011. Tsy