HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.2513 OF 2008 Dt.12.11.2010 Between: Jammi Venkata Kumari and another ..Petitioners And Jami Venkata Ramana ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.2513 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioners herein are the wife and minor son of the respondent. Respondent filed GOP No.817 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act for his appointment as guardian of the custody of his minor son. It is stated that notice was issued and the wife refused to receive the notice and accordingly she was set ex parte on 16.11.2007. Thereafter, she filed petition under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C on 8.2.2008 to set aside the ex parte order dated 16.11.2007 so as to enable her to give opportunity and contest the matter. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.4.2008. Against which, the present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the 1st petitioner wife that she received notice and immediately engaged advocate and filed vakalat on 8.1.2008 on her behalf and on behalf of her son and by that time she came to know that she was already set ex parte by order dated 16.11.2007 and therefore her absence on 16.11.2007 is not wilful or wanton and the endorsement on the notice stating that she is said to have been refused to receive the notice is incorrect and untrue. It is stated that the Postman was managed to get the said endorsement. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no delay in approaching the court seeking to set aside the ex parte order by the wife, I am of the opinion that the Family Court ought to have considered the said application filed under Order IX, Rule 7 C.P.C. In the circumstances, the revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.127 of 2008 in GOP No.817 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, stands allowed. The said GOP itself is directed to be disposed of expeditiously on priority basis. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 12.11.2010 kpr