ANURADHA ASHOK NAIK Vs. ASHOK SAGUN NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice of this writ petition has been served through office upon the Respondent/husband on 15th November, 2010. He has not signed on the notice. The Respondent/husband has remained absent despite notice. Hence only the Petitioner is required to be heard.

(2.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

(3.) The Petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Family Court, Judge, Bandra. Mumbai. dated 8th June. 2010, refusing to condone the delay in filing her petition for setting aside an ex-parte decree of divorce passed by the Court. The husband obtained the ex-parte decree on 6th June, 2007. On the Petitioners own showing, she would have knowledge of the decree at least on J 7th April. 2009 through her uncle one Premanand Ganesh Naik with whom the Respondent/husband had a dispute in Vengurla Court. The Petitioner, however, contended that she came to know of the passing of the decree only on 16th June, 2009 when the uncle came to Goregaon, Mumbai and handed over the photo copies of the judgment and decree. The Petitioner applied for certified copy and that being illegible applied for additional certified copy and obtained it 14 days before she made the application for setting aside the decree. She claims that there was a delay of 10 days. The arithmetical calculation of 10 days is also seen to be incorrect by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has further correctly appreciated that the uncle, who has been cross-examined, admitted in the cross-examination that he was present before the Vengurla Court on J 7th April. 2009 and that he had given her a copy of the Family Court decree in Vengurla Court. If that was so. the Petitioner would have knowledge of that fact through husbands uncle in April. 2009 and not June. 2009 as claimed by her.