IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2786 OF 2010 Between: Ahmed Kaleemuddin …Petitioner A n d Dr.Ameena Tasneem ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2786 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.03.2010 in I.A.No.688 of 2009 in F.C.O.P.No.185 of 2009, on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for respondent and the notice issued to the respondent was returned as ‘unclaimed’. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein was the wife of the petitioner. She filed O.P.No.185 of 2009 for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. It is stated that the petitioner was abroad on job and that he could not appear before the Family Court on the relevant date of hearing. He was, therefore, set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 17.08.2009. On coming to know about the same, it is stated, the petitioner has returned to India and filed I.A.No.688 of 2009 on 09.09.2009 for setting aside the ex parte decree. By the impugned order, the said application was dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court mainly on the ground that by setting aside the ex parte decree, no useful purpose would be served since the respondent herein, the wife, has already married another person by name Mohd.Ibrahim on 18.09.2009. 4. As seen from the impugned order, the respondent herein has entered into a second marriage with Mohd.Ibrahim, which is about one month after passing of the ex parte decree and even before completion of the iddat period of three months. 5. Be that as it may, the dismissal of the application on the ground that setting aside the ex parte decree would not serve any useful purpose in view of the second marriage of the respondent, is unsustainable. The question as to whether or not the absence of the petitioner on the relevant date was wanton or willful and whether or not an opportunity is to be given to the petitioner to oppose the application for divorce, has to be considered independently of the subsequent events that have taken place after passing of the ex parte decree. Simply because, the respondent herein has entered into a second marriage with another person very shortly after passing of the ex parte decree, the petitioner cannot be denied an opportunity to have the matter disposed of on merits, if he is otherwise found entitled for such an opportunity being given. According to the petitioner, he could not attend the Court on the relevant date as he was abroad at that time. The petitioner filed the present application within a month after passing of the ex parte decree. It is stated that three female children are born to the petitioner and respondent through the lawful wedlock and the ex parte decree does not provide for the maintenance of the children or for the visiting rights of the petitioner. 6. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the main O.P is filed by the respondent for dissolution of the marriage, the grant of which entails consequences permanent in nature affecting the social status, legal status and rights of the parties and also their children, it is considered that an opportunity be given to the petitioner herein to contest the O.P., so that the matter can be disposed of on merits. 7. In the circumstances, it is considered a fit case where ex parte decree is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. The impugned order in I.A.No.688 of 2009 in F.CO.P.No.185 of 2009, on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application is, therefore, held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th December, 2011 Lrkm