IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. FRIDAY THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMAI. CRP.No. 2 6 1 0 OF 2009 Between: Smt. B. Jayapradha, w/o. B. Venkatesh Goud, Aged about: 26 years, 0ccupation: Household, R/o. Kashipur village, Cherial Post, Sangareddy Revenue Mandal, Medak District. … Petitioner V/s. B. Venkatesh Goud, S/o. B. Narasimha, Aged about 42 years, 0ccupation:Employee, R/o.H.No. 15-5-477/1, Ashok Bazaar, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad. ... Respondent Counsel for the Revision Petitioner: Mr. P. Ravi Kiran Counsel for the Respondent : None Appeared THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2 6 1 0 OF 2009. O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 25-3-2008 passed in I.A.No. 450 of 2008 in FCOP.No. 61 of 2007 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application filed under section 5 of Limitation Act by the revision petitioner-wife seeking to condone the delay of 378 days in filing the petition under order-9, Rule-13 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the order and decree dated 11-5-2007 passed in OP.No.61 of 2007, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition can be briefly stated as follows: It is stated that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was celebrated on 25-2-2000 at Sangareddy, Medak district. Out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a son. Subsequently, the petitioner was thrown away from her maternal home by the respondent on 15-7-2005 at about 11:30 p.m., as such, she went to her parents house. The child is under the care and custody of the appellant-petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent filed OP.No. 61 of 2007 against the petitioner for divorce. Further it is stated that no notice was served on the appellant- petitioner in the main OP and the respondent by playing fraud had obtained exparte decree against the appellant-petitioner on 15-5-2007. It is also stated that the petitioner came to know about the exparte decree through the pleadings in OP.No. 1082 of 2007 filed by the respondent for custody of the child. Thereafter, consulting her counsel, she filed the petition. There are no latches on her part and the delay is not intentional. 3. On the other hand, the respondent filed his counter-affidavit denying the averments made by the appellant-petitioner in her affidavit and it is averred that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and filed the petition with malafide intention for wrongful gain that she took the custody of the child by filing false criminal complaints. It is averred that the respondent is a physically handicapped, she developed hat-redness towards the respondent, began to treat him with cruelty. Further she used to go her parents house leaving the child with the respondent. That the notices were sent to the petitioner by the Court in OP.No. 61 of 2007. Further the court also appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to serve the notice. Notice was served on the petitioner causing through the Advocate-Commissioner in the presence of Sarpanch and other witnesses. On seeing the said summons, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent’s counsel on 15-3-2007, which is an ample proof for the service of notice on the petitioner. It is averred that the appellant-petitioner during her evidence in D.V.C. No. 4 of 2007 deposed that she received summons in OP.No. 61 of 2007 filed by the respondent against her for divorce. Suppressing all these facts, she filed this petition only with an intention to drag on the proceedings and prayed the court to dismiss the petition with costs. 4. On the basis of rival contentions, the trial court framed the following points for consideration: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for ? 5. On hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and on appreciation of the facts and circumstances, the trial court dismissed the interlocutory application holding that the delay is abnormal and no cogent reasons for the delay were assigned by the petitioner and the trial court also observed that the petitioner is intended to keep the litigation survive without seeking for the redressal and though she is aware of the exparte decree, as she received notice in main OP.No.61 of 2007 much prior to the passing of exparte decree and that she did not take care of the proceedings and deliberately ignored them. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-wife. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that she did not receive any notice before passing of an exparte decree and that she came to know about the exparte decree only when she received pleadings in OP.No.1082 of 2007. Therefore, the delay had been caused in filing the present petition under section 5 of Limitation Act by the revision petitioner-wife seeking to condone the delay of 378 days in filing the petition under order-9, Rule-13 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the order and decree dated 11-5-2007 passed in OP.No.61 of 2007. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, perused the impugned order and the material available on records. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Court is not satisfied with the contention raised by the counsel for the revision petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not denied the fact in her evidence in DVC.No.4 of 2007 that she received summons in OP.No.61 of 2007 filed by the respondent and more the Advocate- Commissioner has served the notice on her in the presence of Sarpanch and other witnesses and that after receiving notice she had addressed a letter to respondent’s counsel on 15-3-2007, which itself is self-explanatory. The record further goes to show that the date of exparte decree is 11-5- 2007 but two months after she received notice in the main OP the exparte decree was passed. The averments made in the petition were framed in such a fashion that no notice was served on her in OP.No.61 of 2007. The trial court has therefore rightly observed that the intention of the petitioner is to keep the litigation alive without seeking redressal of the grievance, though she is aware of the exparte decree, as she had received notice in main OP.No.61 of 2007 i.e., much prior to the passing of exparte decree but she had deliberately avoided to appear before the court after receipt of notice in the said O.P., and allowed the OP to be decreed exparte and thereafter she remained silent for more than one year. In my considered opinion, the contention raised by the revision petitioner is an after-thought, as she is aware of the proceedings of the court. For the foregoing reasons, it appears that the conduct of the revision petitioner is not fair and she is not diligent enough in prosecuting the case and throwing the blame on the trial court as well as the respondent that no notice was served on her before passing of an exparte decree, which is palpably false and an arrant tissue of falsehood. 10. Under the above circumstances, for the reasons alike recorded by the trial court rejecting the petitioner’s contention, in my considered opinion, there appears no infirmity in the order impugned and the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge for dismissing the petition are germane, rational and adequate. I express my disinclination to admit and accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly I dismiss the present revision, confirming the order passed by the learned trial Judge in all respects. For the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid analysis, the contention of the petitioner merits no acceptance by this Court and accordingly the revision is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. 21-08-2009. I s L.