THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA F.C.A.M.P.No.479 of 2009 and F.C.A.No.160 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, after hearing both the parties, we deem it expedient to dispose of the main appeal itself. 2. Heard both sides. 3. This appeal is preferred by the wife challenging t h e ex parte order, dated 10.12.2007, passed in O.P.No.181 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 4. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellant will be referred to as “the wife’ and the respondent will be referred to as ‘the husband.” 6. The undisputed facts are that the said O.P. was filed by the husband seeking divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act; that during the pendency of the said O.P., on the date fixed by the Court below for conducting an enquiry in the said O.P., the wife was not present, as a result thereof, ex parte decree was passed, which is being challenged in the present appeal. Unfortunately, this appeal had been filed by the wife with a delay of 593 days. 7. When the present F.C.A.M.P.No.479 of 2009, which is filed seeking to condone the delay of 593 days in preferring the present appeal, came up for hearing, both the learned counsel represented that the wife was not present before the Court on the date when the said O.P. was taken up. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the husband contended that since the wife called absent, the Court below was absolutely justified in setting her ex parte and passing an ex parte decree against her. He further contended that the present application cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the inordinate delay of 593 days in filing the appeal had not been properly explained. 9. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the wife had initiated proceedings against the husband under the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the same was numbered as D.V.No.26 of 2008 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri. 10. Be that as it may, it is to be noted that the wife, in fact, ought to have filed an appropriate application before the Court below seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil procedure, instead of resorting to file the present appeal straightaway. In normal course, the delay cannot be condoned, but, in view of the sensitivity of the issue involved, we feel it expedient that the wife shall not be subjected to arduous proceedings of approaching the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, again, particularly, when she has been residing around Hyderabad along with the child, aged about three years. Therefore, the application F.C.A.M.P.No.479 of 2009 is ordered condoning the delay. 11. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that are on record, we feel it expedient that the disputes between the parties be resolved by adjudication by a competent Court at a place convenient to the wife. 12. Undisputedly, the wife is living around Hyderabad along with the child. In that view of the matter, we deem it expedient to direct that D.V.No.26 of 2008 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri, be withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. We also direct that O.P.No.181 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, be restored to its original file and after such restoration, the same shall be withdrawn from the said Court and transferred to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. We further direct that after receipt of the records from the Courts concerned, the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, shall dispose of both the matters viz., D.V.No.26 of 2008 and O.P.No.181 of 2007, by conducting a joint trial, with utmost expedition, if necessary, on priority basis. 13. Both the parties are directed to be present before the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, on 16.08.2010. 14. Subject to the above directions, the appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 5th July 2010 Note: Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of this judgment forthwith, without any further loss of time, to the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri and the Family Court, Visakhapatnam.