HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.187 of 2011 Date: February 02, 2011 Between: H. Mukesh … Petitioner And H. Vijaya Laxmi @ Lavanya … Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.187 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner herein filed O.P. No.3 of 2009 for grant of divorce with the respondent-wife. The said O.P. was decreed ex parte on 17th August 2009. Seeking to set aside the said order, I.A. No.57 of 2010 has been moved by the respondent-wife. 2. In view of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., the learned Judge of the Family Court, Medak at Sangareddy considered it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and also considered it appropriate to set aside the ex parte decree dated 17th August 2009 and restored the O.P. No.3 of 2009 to file. Calling in question the said order, the petitioner herein filed the present civil revision petition. 3. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was not in dispute at all. The petitioner herein has filed the O.P. seeking for divorce from the respondent-wife. Based upon the endorsement “not claimed” found on the postal cover, an ex parte decree was passed dissolving the marriage between the parties by the Court on 17.8.2009. Considering the said application and in view of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support thereof by the respondent-wife, the said I.A. was allowed and the ex parte decree was set-aside on 30.11.2007. The respondent- wife was directed to file her counter latest by 22.10.2010. 3. There is no illegality committed by the Court in entertaining I.A. No.57 of 2010 and allowing the same. Annulment of marriage between two parties carries with it greater civil consequences. Therefore, the discretion has been rightly used by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Medak at Sangareddy in allowing the said interlocutory application. 4. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the annulment of the decree passed in his favour because he contracted a marriage second time, as his marriage with the respondent herein has been legally annulled. Because of the subsequent development, he seeks to preserve the ex parte decree dated 17.8.2009. 5. The subsequent developments, if any, that took place after the ex parte decree can be brought to the notice of the Court when it undertakes trial of O.P. No.3 of 2009 so that the Court can grant appropriate relief. 6. With this, the civil revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: February 02, 2011. BSB