:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.428 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.428 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.428 OF 2007 Anil Maruti Kosumbkar ...Applicant. v. Smt. Sandhya Anil Kosumbkar ...Respondent. Mrs.S.S.Deshpande , adv. for the Applicant. Mr.R.R.Bhatkar , adv. for the Respondent absent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 2nd April, 2008. DATE: 2nd April, 2008. DATE: 2nd April, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. Perused the impugned order. The present applicant had filed Marriage Petition No.35 of 2005 for divorce against the respondent/wife. She was served with notice in December, 2005 but she remained absent and the matter proceeded exparte. On 13-4-2006 exparte decree was passed against the respondent/wife. Respondent file Miscellaneous Civil Application No.41 of 2006 for condonation of delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the exparte decree. According to her, she had come to know about the said exparte decree on 23-6-2006 and on 28-6-2006 she had applied for certified copy of the judgment in the Court and on 24-7-2006 she had filed the said application. According to her after service of the notice she was :2: attending concerned marriage counselling centre run by Naik Foundation for the purpose of settlement of the matter and, therefore, she had not appeared. This was denied by the petitioner. On 10-7-2007 the learned trial Court passed the impugned order allowing the application for condonation of delay subject to costs of Rs.200/-. That order is challenged in the present Revision Application by the husband. 2. Admittedly, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the exparte decree is still pending and that can be decided on its own merits. It is also admitted that the applicant/husband had not entered into second marriage even after exparte decree for divorce is passed. While allowing the application for condonation of delay, the learned trial Court observed that it is not appropriate to take hyper technical view in the matter and it will be proper to decide the matter on its own merits as serious points of marital relations are involved. The learned trial Court also observed that in its opinion, it is fit case to take liberal approach in condonation of delay. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the approach of the trial Court and in the impugned order whereby delay is condoned. 3. Therefore, Revision Application stands rejected. :3: (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)