THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3034 of 2009 Dated : 12.10.2009 Between : Boggula Koti Reddy ….. Petitioner a n d Boggula Pullamma ….. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3034 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, dated 01.06.2009, passed in I.A.No.1688 of 2008 in H.M.O.P.No.100 of 2008. This is a peculiar case where the wife/respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.100 of 2008 for a decree of divorce, in which, an ex parte decree was granted in her favour on 05.09.2008. Thereafter, again she filed a petition in I.A.No.1688 of 2008 under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the said ex parte decree granted in her favour and the same was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, vide impugned order. It is the case of the wife, who filed H.M.O.P.No.100 of 2008, that she never filed said H.M.O.P., her signatures were taken by her husband/petitioner herein on some papers suppressing the real facts stating that the suit is being filed on her behalf against her father for partition of properties and much later she came to know that by taking her signatures on the pretext of filing partition suit, her husband has filed the H.M.O.P. and thus, played trick on her to get rid of her by getting divorce in an easy way. The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband contends that benefit of filing petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not available to the petitioner, on whose filing the divorce petition, the ex parte decree was granted in her favour. Technically, the same can not be disputed, but as already referred in this case, the allegations of the wife/respondent are that the husband/petitioner fraudulently obtained her signatures on some papers, filed divorce O.P. and obtained divorce. Thus, there are serious allegations of fraud leveled against the husband/petitioner herein. The contention of the wife/respondent that she was cheated by the petitioner/husband prima facie appears to be acceptable. As seen from the record, the ex parte decree was passed on 05.09.2008 and I.A.No.1688 of 2008 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree was filed on 13.10.2008 i.e. about a month later. If really, the wife/respondent herself filed the divorce petition and got an ex parte decree in her favour, there is no necessity for her to again file a petition seeking to set aside the same immediately. Thus, the circumstances show that there is likelihood of fraud on the part of the petitioner/husband. Apart from technical lapses on the part of the wife, who filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree passed in H.M.O.P. filed by herself, which is not an appropriate provision of law as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, there are allegations of fraud against the husband/petitioner. Therefore, I see no substantial injustice in allowing the impugned petition by the learned trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/wife, the wife and husband are still living under one roof and the husband is now trying to neck out the wife, whereas, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, they are not living together and the wife is harassing the petitioner/husband and filed the O.P. It may not be necessary to make an enquiry into all these allegations at this stage. If necessary, an enquiry into the same can be taken up at an appropriate time to give appropriate relief to the parties and what all is required to be done now is to set aside the entire proceedings that have taken place in H.M.O.P.No.100 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Khammam, and they are accordingly set aside. The spouses are at liberty to take up fresh proceedings for divorce treating that the proceedings in the above O.P. as nullity. The right to take appropriate action for the alleged fraud played by the husband shall stand reserved and shall be available for the wife. The civil revision petition is disposed of with above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J 12th October, 2009 sur