IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS 25th day of March, 2011. PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 986 of 2011 Between: Duggirala Pradeep Kumar ..Petitioner and Duggirala Hemasri Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 986 of 2011 O r d e r: The petitioner –husband filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in allowing I.A.No. 773 of 201 in O.P.No.79 of 2009 setting aside the ex parte decree passed in his favour on 8.6.2009. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order, no notice was served on him and no opportunity was afforded to him to file counter. In those circumstances, the learned Judge ought not to have set aside the ex parte order. 4. It is to be seen that the respondent/wife filed I.A.No. 773 of 2010 before the trial court stating that the she filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence under section 498-A IPC; on such complaint, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody; bail was granted to him on 9.6.2010; whereas ex parte order was passed against her on 8-6-2009, on the basis of the affidavit filed by him, as if he is present in the court. It is further submitted by her that she was not served with a notice in the main OP, as it was sent to her old address, consequently resulting in passing of ex parte order. It is only on 17-2-2010, when her mother went to their old house, she came to know about the issuance of notice; thereafter she enquired into the matter and came to know about passing of ex parte order. 5. The respondent-wife has taken a specific plea that when the petitioner was in remand on 8.6.2009, bail was granted only on 9-06-2009, he cannot file an affidavit in lieu of his chief evidence, as if he was present in the court; therefore, passing ex parte order recording his presence is nothing but playing fraud. The said fact has not been denied by the petitioner-husband, in the affidavit filed along with the revision petition. 6. In view of the said facts and circumstances the learned Judge was right in setting aside the ex parte order dated: 8-6-2009, which, in fact, was obtained by playing fraud, as the petitioner could not be present before the court, on the said date, so as to pass an ex parte order in his favour. In such circumstances, issuing of notice in the petition to set aside the ex parte order is of no consequence. 7. In the circumstances stated supra, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. 8. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. March 25, 2011. *BVS