1 F.C.A.No. 12 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.12 OF 2011 Sunil Laxmanrao Salve ..APPELLANT VERSUS Chhaya Sunil Salve ..RESPONDENT Mr Hemant Surve, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 30th March, 2011 PER COURT : The Family Court Appeal has been preferred against the order of the Family Court, dated 25.2.2011 restoring the petition filed by the appellant. This petition was decided ex parte and a decree of divorce was granted to the petitioner on 20.12.2006. The respondent preferred an application for restoration of the petition on the ground that she had not been served. The Family Court has considered the reports of the Bailiff and the postal intimation sent to respondent and has found that the service of the summons was not effected on her. It is, in these circumstances, that the Family Court has restored the petition. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that apart from the summons being served on the respondent through the Court as well as by Registered Post A.D., the Marriage Counsellor had 2 F.C.A.No. 12 of 2011 also sent an intimation to the respondent. According to him, there was no response even in that regard and, therefore, the ex parte order ought not to have been set aside. 3. In our view, a discretionary order has been passed by the Family Court after considering the proceedings which led to the ex parte decree. In our view, the Family Court has not committed any error by restoring the petition in view of the fact that summons had not been served on the respondent. It has been noted that the postal acknowledgment indicates that intimation was given. Who was given the intimation or how it was given has not been recorded by the postal authorities. The Bailiff report indicated that the respondent was not at home when he had gone to serve her. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Appeal dismissed. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant seeks a stay of this order. We are not inclined to grant stay. Stay refused. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) amj/fca12.11