THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5334 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5335 OF 2010 Dated: 17.11.2011 In Civil Revision Petition No.5334 Of 2010: Between: Smt. Mundra Prathiba … Petitioner And Ananthula Sandeep … Respondent In Civil Revision Petition No.5335 Of 2010: Between: Smt. Mundra Prathiba … Petitioner And Ananthula Sandeep … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5334 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5335 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER : These two Revision Petitions are ﬁled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the notices issued by the Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar informing the petitioner that the respondent herein ﬁled applications for restoration of O.P.No.1029 of 2009 after condoning the delay of 27 days in ﬁling the said application and calling upon the petitioner to appear in person on 30.07.2011. The facts, in brief, are as under: The revision petitioner and the respondent herein ﬁled O.P.No.1029 of 2009 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce by mutual consent. After waiting for the statutory period, the evidence of both the parties was recorded and on the basis of the same, the Court below by order dated 3.5.2010 granted decree by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on mutual consent. Subsequently the respondent herein/husband ﬁled I.A.No.1436 of 2010 under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for restoration of O.P.No.1029 of 2009 alleging that he was forced to sign the petition for divorce by mutual consent and the decree dated 3.5.2010 was against his will and consent. He also ﬁled I.A.No.1435 of 2010 for condonation of delay of 27 days in ﬁling the application for restoration. After receiving the notice in the said applications, these two Civil Revision Petitions have been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. At the outset, it is to be noticed that O.P.No.1029 of 2009 was ﬁled under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and both the parties deposed before the Court below that they were no more willing to live together. On the basis of their evidence, the decree dated 3.5.2010 came to be passed dissolving the marriage. Thus it is a decree which was passed after hearing both the parties. Therefore Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. which provides for setting aside the dismissal of the suit on the ground of absence of the plaintiﬀ for hearing has no application at all to the case on hand. Moreover, the decree passed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with the consent of both parties is in the nature of a compromise decree. It is also relevant to note that the respondent who appeared before this Court in person on 4.11.2011 stated that in view of the subsequent events he is not interested to prosecute I.A.No.1435/2010 and I.A.No.1436/ 2010 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Revision Petitions are allowed and I.A.No.1435/2010 and I.A.No.1436/2010 in O.P.No.1029 of 2009 are hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.11.2011 gbs