:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8583 OF 2007 Sou. Nilima Avinash Shinde .. Petitioner Vs. Dr. Avinash Sudhakar Shinde .. Respondent Mr. K.K. Tated with Ms. Matesha Jain for petitioner. Mr. J.G. Aradwad for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : June 06, 2008. Date : June 06, 2008. Date : June 06, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Tated the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife. 2. Rule. Mr. Aradwad waives service for the respondent-husband. 3. By the impugned order Civil Misc. Application No.230 of 2006 filed for condonation of delay in filing an application for setting aside the ex parte decree passed by the 5th Additional District Judge in :2: Marriage Petition No. 3 of 2002 on 9/10/2002, has been dismissed and, therefore, the petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 4. Let it be noted at the threshold that during the course of hearing of this petition yesterday, the learned counsel for the respective parties were called upon to take instructions as to whether the petitioner-wife would restore cohabitation with the respondent-husband and whether the husband in turn will allow the wife in her matrimonial home. The wife is present in the court today and she states that she is ready and willing to restore cohabitation with the husband. However, Mr. Aradwad the learned counsel for the husband, on instructions, states that the husband has already filed two separate divorce petitions before the Family Court at Pune and he is not inclined to restore cohabitation with the wife. Mr. Tated the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has brought on record copies of both the divorce petitions filed by the husband and it appears that Marriage Petition No. 17 of 2005 has been filed under Section 10(viii), whereas the other petition filed in :3: 2008 is under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act. 5. Be that as it may, it is clear that the decree passed in Marriage Petition No. 3 of 2002 on 9/10/2002 was ex parte and the wife had claimed that she got knowledge of the same in December, 2003 and obtained the certified copy of the same on 22/12/2003. The restoration application was filed on 7/3/2006 and it, therefore, appears that there was delay of about two years. The trial court was not impressed by the explanation furnished by the petitioner-wife and despite the reference to the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag Vs. Katiji [AIR 1987 SC 1353], the application was dismissed. 6. The approach of both the courts below cannot be accepted. The documents placed before this court do indicate that the wife has been continuously trying to persuade her husband to restore matrimonial relations and on some pretext or the other her attempts were not allowed to be successful. She is in the Government employment and posted at Mumbai and the :4: husband is a Medical practitioner at Pune. In my considered opinion interest of justice would be better served if the application for condonation of delay is allowed so as to decide the application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree. 7. Hence, the petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 11/7/2007 is quashed and set aside and consequently Civil Misc. Application No. 230 of 2006 stands allowed. It is further directed that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree shall be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from the receipt of writ from this court. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 9. Writ to go forthwith. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)