THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2331 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 06.02.2008, in I.A.No.581 of 2007 in O.P.No.794 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 146 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the respondent filed O.P.No.794 of 2006 for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. On 29.01.2007, petitioner herein was set ex parte and an ex parte decree of divorce was passed. Subsequently, petitioner herein filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, together with an application-I.A.No.581 of 2007, seeking condonation of delay of 146 days. According to the petitioner, she was not served with any notice in the O.P., and she was not aware of filing of the O.P. by the respondent for divorce and that she came to know of it only during the course of the proceedings in O.P.No.483 of 2007, which was filed by the respondent for recovery of property. Thereafter, she filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. In I.A.No.581 of 2007 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, respondent filed counter opposing the said application. The learned Judge, Family Court by the impugned order dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner has not explained the delay satisfactorily. 4. A perusal of the docket proceedings of the trial Court would show that the notice issued to the petitioner herein in the O.P. was in fact, returned unserved for want of door number etc. The same appears to have been taken by the trial Court as one of refusal and she was set ex parte. As the notice was returned unserved for want of door number, the plea of the petitioner that she has no knowledge of filing of the O.P. by the respondent till he revealed the same during the course of the proceedings in the other O.P.No.483 of 2007 filed by him, appears to be probable. In the meanwhile, the delay of 146 days has occurred. It cannot therefore be said that there is no proper explanation for the said delay. That apart, having regard to the nature of the dispute, which is matrimonial, and the nature of the proceedings initiated by the respondent i.e. for divorce, the result of which will have a cascading effect on both parties, it is only just and proper that the matter is disposed of on merits instead of ex parte. In that view of the matter, it is considered just and expedient to afford an opportunity for the petitioner herein to contest the O.P. filed by the respondent for divorce. As the delay of 146 days is satisfactorily explained by the petitioner, the impugned order, dismissing the application to condone the said delay, is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.581 of 2007 stands allowed. 5. Civil Revision Petition is allowed as stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 24th August, 2011. Tsy