IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.232 of 2008 Between: R. Uma Shankar … Petitioner And: R Sandhya … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.232 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.10.2007 in IA No.600 of 2007 in FCOP No.293 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 26.09.2006, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed OP No.293 of 2006 for maintenance of her daughter. The petitioner herein was set ex- parte and ex-parte decree was passed on 26.09.2006 granting maintenance. The petitioner filed IA No.600 of 2007 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC claiming that he has not received notice from the Court in the EP and he came to know about the ex-parte decree only when the property belonging to his mother was attached in EP No.8 of 2007 on 31.05.2007. The respondent filed counter opposing the application. 4. As seen from the impugned order, notices in the OP were sent to the respondent to his address house bearing D.No.11-6- 60/2 Railway Quarters, Red Hills, Hyderabad. The notices were sent by speed post, DTDC courier service and also by registered post to the above said address. It is not the case of the petitioner that the notices were sent to any wrong address. The notices were returned un-served with endorsement that they were unclaimed and refused. The notices sent through DTDC courier service was also returned as un-served with endorsement of refusal. When the notices were sent to correct address of the respondent and when they were returned with endorsement of refusal, the trial Court was justified in setting the respondent ex-parte when he has not appeared. The petitioner claimed that there was compromise between himself and his wife and in terms thereof, he paid Rs.5,00,000/- to her towards permanent alimony. According to him the said amount includes maintenance of child also. The impugned order shows that the petitioner has not produced copy of any such compromise deed and he has not specifically stated as to how much was paid towards maintenance of the child. The said plea that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- included the maintenance claim of the child also remains unsubstantiated. The learned Judge, Family Court, has on proper appreciation of the material on record, rightly dismissed the application holding that the petitioner having knowledge of filing of the OP, avoided the notices and hence, ex- parte decree was not liable to be set aside. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.06.2011 bss