HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.NO.565 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard both the counsel. This appeal is directed against the order in I.A.No.661 of 2007 in O.P.No.228 of 2005 on the file of the Judge Family Court, Visakhapatnam, dated 14.3.2008. Petitioner/appellant herein is the wife of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed O.P.No.228 of 2005 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act by dissolving the marriage solemnized on 10.3.1986 on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. In the said O.P. appellant herein was the 1st respondent remained ex parte on 5.1.2007 and the matter underwent six adjournments for ex parte evidence of the husband and the husband filed evidence affidavit and the petition was decreed ex parte by order dated 20.4.2007. To set aside the ex parte decree, the petitioner filed I.A.No.661 of 2007 on 17.5.2007 within the prescribed time under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 14.3.2008. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed this appeal. Pending admission, this Court on 9.7.2008 in CMAMP No.1256 of 2008 granted interim suspension of the ex parte decree dated 20.4.2007 in O.P.No.228 of 2005. To vacate the said interim order, the first respondent husband filed C.M.A.M.P.No.336 of 2010. This matter is taken up for disposal while considering the application in CMAMP No.336 of 2010 seeking to vacate the interim order passed by this Court on 9.7.2008 in CMAMP No.1256 of 2008. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the ex parte decree set aside under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. It is not in dispute that the O.P. filed by the 1st respondent husband seeking divorce on the grounds of adultery and cruelty is pending along with M.C.No.122 of 2005 filed by the wife on the same Family Court, Visakhapatnam. It is stated that both the matters are being posted together from time to time. The petitioner could not note the orders dated 5.1.2007 as well as the ex parte decree dated 20.4.2007 as the said M.C was coming up and the same was pending. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the said I.A contending that M.C.No.122 of 2005 for grant of maintenance also called at a time during the call work and on 20.4.2007 the M.C. was called and the petitioner appeared before the Court and while adjourning the M.C., the court passed ex parte order on 20.4.2007 in the absence of the petitioner or her counsel. However, she filed the said application within the time seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam dismissed the said application by order dated 14.3.2008 without appreciating the contentions of the counsel that she was genuinely thought that the divorce O.P. would be called along with M.C., which was said to have been dismissed for default, prior to calling of the M.C. We are of the opinion that the appellant wife has shown sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order in I.A.No.661 of 2007 in O.P.No.228 of 2005, dated 14.3.2008, is set aside and O.P.No.228 of 2005 stands restored to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The C.M.A is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J. 29.3.2010 kpr