IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2347 of 2010 Between: Darsi Srikanth ..... PETITIONER AND Darsi Pushpalatha @ Merugu Pushpalatha @Merugu Naga Surya Pushpalatha @Mary Suvarna Latha .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2347 of 2010 O R D E R: Petitioner is the husband of the respondent who filed DOP.101/2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur for dissolution of the marriage under Sec.10(1)(i) of the Divorce Act on 30.05.2009. Notice was served on the respondent/wife. As she was unable to attend the Court below on 06.10.2009 she was set ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his affidavit of chief examination on 03.11.2009 and evidence was recorded on 22.12.2009 and the matter was posted for hearing on 18.01.2010. On 18.01.2010 the wife appeared before the Court below and represented that her husband lived along with her from 29.08.2009 till the first week of October 2009 and he left her by promising her to withdraw the OP. She came to know that the OP was not withdrawn by the husband and she remained ex parte on 06.10.2009. After coming to know the fate of the matter, she came from Hubli, Karnataka to Guntur and appeared before the Court below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Judge, directed the husband to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to his wife and posted the matter to 19.02.2010. On 19.02.2010 instead of paying the costs, the petitioner filed a memo stating that the respondent/wife already remained ex parte and therefore, the question of paying the costs towards the expenses of his wife does not arise. But the learned Family Judge rejected the said memo by the impugned order, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.2,000/- as per the order dated 18.01.2010. Admittedly, an order was passed on 18.01.2010 explaining the reasons for not appearing the wife on 06.10.2009. I am of the opinion that the ex parte order dated 06.10.2009 is deemed to have been set aside and the Court below rightly imposed costs of Rs.2,000/- towards traveling expenses for the respondent/wife, payable by the petitioner/husband. I do not see infirmity, legal or otherwise, to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 05.08.2011 Dsr