HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.629 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent filed this Civil Revision Petition questioning the order, dated 27.01.2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar, in I.A.No.47 of 2009 in O.P.No.51 of 2008, whereby the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. praying to set aside the ex parte order, dated 16.01.2009, passed in O.P.No.51 of 2008 was allowed. By the said ex parte order, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by granting a decree of divorce. The brief facts are that the petitioner and the respondent were in love with each other and their marriage was performed on 18.02.2006 at Arya Samaj. Subsequent to the marriage, the petitioner came to know of certain facts i.e., prior to their marriage, the respondent was married to one P.Mathaiah and subsequently, the said marriage was dissolved pursuant to the award passed under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 in O.P.No.20 of 2004, dated 07.02.2006. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the respondent is older than him and that all these facts were not brought to his notice and were totally suppressed and simply believing the respondent, he married her at Arya Samaj. On the said grounds, the petitioner, filed O.P.No.51 of 2008 before the Court below. When the notice sent by the petitioner to the respondent by registered post was returned unserved, as per the directions issued by the Court below, he took out substitute service and got the said notice published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper Mahabubnagar Edition. Despite the substitute service, as there was no appearance of the wife-respondent herein, the Court below set her ex parte and passed a decree on 16.01.2009 dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Subsequent to the said ex parte decree, the wife, who is the respondent herein, came to know of the said decree and she filed I.A.No.47 of 2009 to set aside the said ex parte decree in the said O.P. and as stated supra, the same was allowed. Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioner- husband, mainly contended that the petitioner had complied with all the legal requirements in sending the notice to the wife and when the wife did not put in her appearance, there was no option but to accept the contention of the petitioner and accordingly, the Court below set the respondent ex parte and passed the decree in the said O.P. He further tried to impress upon this Court stating that the earlier marriage between the respondent and P.Mathaiah, though was dissolved, was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner and on the said ground and several other grounds, he sought the decree of divorce. Sri A.Bhuvana Sunder Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, contended that in a case of this nature, particularly with regard to the marital status, it is always desirable that the same is decided on merits rather than on technicalities. It is his further contention that the notice sent to the respondent was returned unserved with an endorsement “no such person” and in those circumstances, the Court below instead of straightaway ordering substitute service ought to have directed the petitioner herein to furnish the correct particulars of the respondent so that the notice would have been served on the respondent and she would have had an opportunity to contest the said O.P. So far as the merits as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, this Court is not inclined to go into the same for the reason that it may prejudice the case of the parties. The said O.P. was filed, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage, and the petitioner had complied with all the legal requirements such as sending of notice, and when the same was returned unserved taking out substitute service etc. But, in a case of this nature, particularly with regard to the marital status of the parties, this Court is of the firm opinion that the wife shall be given an opportunity to appear and put her case before the Court. Apparently, the said decree that was passed by the Court below on 16.01.2009 is a n ex parte decree. If really, the respondent-wife had no grievance she would have kept quiet and she would not have approached the Court by filing the present application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. That itself shows the bona fides of the respondent-wife and establishes the fact that she is not aware of any of the proceedings before the Court below. In an O.P., filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce, in my considered view, no prudent wife will keep quiet and in normal circumstances, she contests the matter and ultimately, it is for the Court to decide as to whether the husband is entitled for divorce or not. As this is an ex parte decree dissolving the marriage between the parties and as the wife has come forward saying that she is not aware of the proceedings before the Court below, this Court is of the opinion that the wife be given an opportunity of being heard in the said O.P. Hence, the Court below is justified in passing the impugned order, setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 16.01.2009, passed in O.P.No.51 of 2008 and the same cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Accordingly, I see no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the said O.P. is of the year 2008 and as both the parties expressed their willingness to co-operate with the trial of the said O.P., the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Court, Mahabubnagar, is hereby directed to dispose of O.P.No.51 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 20th August 2010 dr