IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION CASE NO:774 OF 2010 DATED:16.7.2010 Between: D.Purnachandra Raju .....PETITIONER AND Smt.Prathyusha .....RESPONDENT This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION CASE NO:774 OF 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2009 passed in I.A.No:156 of 2009 in O.P.No:10 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bodan. I.A.No:156 of 2009 is filed by the respondent in the C.R.P under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C with a prayer to set aside the exparte decree dated 11.12.2008 passed in O.P.No:10 of 2008. The said I.A was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodan. Aggrieved by which, the respondent in the said I.A., who is the husband of the respondent herein filed the present civil revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the exparte decree passed by the lower Court, the petitioner married another woman and therefore, in the event of allowing the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in I.A.No:156 of 2009 to exist, consequently, O.P.No:10 of 2008 will be restored to file and in such an event, there is likelihood of filing a criminal case against the petitioner herein by the respondent. Therefore, he seeks to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order impugned herein. He also submits that after filing the O.P.No:10 of 2008, notices were issued to the respondent and thereafter, there was a paper publication in the widely circulated daily News paper “Hindu” and in spite of the same, the respondent could not make her appearance before the lower Court and under such circumstances, the lower Court had passed the order of exparte decree. Inspite of the same, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent and therefore, the same is illegal. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in the revision petition. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on account of the examinations that she has undergone, she could not notice the posting of the O.P and therefore, she could not appear before the lower Court on the relevant date. It is further submitted that the respondent has shown the sufficient and reasonable cause for her absence on the relevant date and by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent and therefore, the lower Court has not committed any error in allowing the application. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Now, coming to the facts of the case on hand, the respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner- husband filed O.P.10 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodan under section 13 (1A) and (b) of the Hindu Marriages Act seeking divorce. An exparte decree was passed on 11.12.2008. Having come to know about the same, the respondent herein filed I.A.156 of 2009 under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C seeking to set aside the exparte decree on the ground that due to the examinations that she has undergone, she could not see the notice published in the Daily News Paper “Hindu” (English Version) and therefore, she could not appear before the lower Court on the relevant date. A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner herein before the lower Court denying the allegations made by the respondent herein. An enquiry has been conducted into the allegations made by either side in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No:156 of 2009 and also the counter filed by the respondent therein and an elaborate order has been passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodan by giving reasons for setting aside the exparte decree. In paragraph 17 of the order impugned herein, it is observed that admittedly, both the parties have got filed the cases against each other and some of the cases are still pending for disposal before the Courts at Vijayawada. The respondent herein has been residing with her parents at Vijayawada. She was idle as stated by her father. The evidence of P.w.2 goes to show that instead of keeping his daughter-respondent herein idle, she was admitted in B.Sc., computer Course and she has been prosecuting her studies in Sri Chaithanya College and residing in Hostel and due to busy of the examinations, she could not see the notice published against her in the Daily News Paper “Hindu”. It is obvious that the respondent herein has been residing in the Women Hostel at Sri Chaithanya College, Vijayawada and prosecuting her studies in B.Sc., Computers. Therefore, there is no possibility of going through the Daily News paper unless it is being provided in the hostel by its Management. Therefore, I believe the version of the respondent herein that due to her busy in the examinations by staying in the Women’s Hostel, she could not see the notice published against her in the Daily News Paper “Hindu” (English Version). There is no dispute that the respondent herein has been prosecuting her studies in B.Sc., Computers by staying in Women’s Hostel. In the circumstances, the reasoning given by the learned Senior Civil Judge, which is based on record and which is clear and cogent, cannot be found fault with. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:16.7.2010 gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:774 OF 2010 16TH July, 2010