IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBR, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.159 OF 2010 Between: Ch.Ram Mohan Rao. … Appellant And Y.Padmalatha. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.159 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri K.Rajanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 26.02.2010, of the Family Court, Rangareddy District, rejecting I.A.No.2193 of 2009 in O.P.No.1 of 2009. The appellant/husband is the respondent in O.P.No.1 of 2009 instituted by the respondent/wife for a decree of dissolution of marriage. The appellant was set ex parte and an ex parte decree passed on 03.08.2009. Seeking recall of the ex parte decree, the appellant filed I.A.No.2193 of 2009, which was rejected by the order impugned in this appeal. The Court below in rejecting the application held that on receipt of notice, the petitioner had appeared before the Family Court on 23.04.2009 and thereafter on 02.06.2009, but failed to file a counter affidavit. On the third adjournment i.e., on 14.07.2009 he neither appeared nor filed a counter affidavit. From 14.07.2009 to 22.07.2009, the matter was adjourned and on that date also the petitioner failed to either appear or file a counter affidavit. Therefore, he was set ex parte on 22.07.2009 and an ex parte decree was passed on the next date of hearing i.e., on 03.08.2009, after recording the evidence of the respondent/petitioner in the O.P. Learned counsel for the appellant states that though the appellant had been remiss in not diligently prosecuting his defence in the O.P., as the consequences of a divorce order are critical to his family and emotional needs, he should be provided an opportunity to contest the application for divorce on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since a counter had already been filed in the O.P., along with I.A.No.2193 of 2009 and he undertakes to participate diligently and assiduously in the trial of O.P.No.1 of 2009, even if it is held on a day to day basis, if so considered appropriate by the Family Court he should be afforded an opportunity. Learned counsel for the appellant also states that since the respondent had suffered unavoidable injury on the protractive litigative trauma on account of the earlier dilatory tactics of the appellant, the appellant is willing to recompense the respondent in an amount of Rs.2,500/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and those of the respondent who resists this appeal, we consider it appropriate to allow this appeal on the following conditions:- 1. The appellant shall pay to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) by way of a demand draft drawn on a nationalised bank in her favour and on receipt of such amount, the respondent shall pass an acknowledgment as to the receipt of the instrument; 2. The appellant shall without demur or further procrastination, participate in the trial of O.P.No.1 of 2009 either in person or by engaging a counsel with the leave of the Family Court, Rangareddy District and shall attend the proceedings till conclusion of O.P.No.1 of 2009; 3. The learned Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy District shall rigorously ensure the presence of the appellant herein at the trial of O.P.No.1 of 2009, whenever warranted and in case of his absence, without clear and justifiable cause, shall proceed to dispose of O.P.No.1 of 2009 ex parte; and 4. The Family Court, Rangareddy District is requested to consider expeditious disposal of O.P., by proceeding with the trial of the matter, preferably in December 2010. It is needless to say that the respondent/wife shall also co- operate in the expeditious disposal of her application for dissolution of marriage. The Family Court Appeal is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 10th November 2010 Note:- C.C. by one week. {B/o} lmv