C VENKATRAMANA Vs. C PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the 1st respondent herein received the notice she did not appear in the Court either in person or through a counsel duly instructed to consider her case on merits.

(2.) The petitioner herein initiated proceedings in O.P. No. 78 of 1991 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli for divorce against his wife, the 1st respondent herein, on the ground that she is living in adultery and the said O.P seemed to have been decreed ex parte on 3-12-1991. After 4 years 29 days, the wife, respondent No. 1 herein, filed I.A. No. 410 of 1995 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the wife admitted that her husband had already contacted second marriage. The trial court started recording the evidence from 1995 onwards and in a span of five years two witnesses seemed to have been examined on behalf of the 1st respondent herein. Ultimately, by docket order dated 8-9-2000 the Court below condoned the delay of 4 years 29 days on payment of Rs. 200.00 on the concession made by the 2nd respondent in the petition, who is no other than the alleged paramour of the petitioner in the application. The Court below did not discuss either the evidence recorded in the case or considered the plea of the petitioner that the abnormal delay of 4 years 29 days in filing the application to set aside the decree was not explained.

(3.) The way in which the Subordinate Judge disposed of the I.A is very strange and unheard of in the annals of judicial history. Without considering the plea of the contesting respondent and on the concession made by a proforma respondent supporting the petition, he allowed the application. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in law and accordingly it is set aside and the application for condonation of delay of 4 years 29 days is dismissed. No order as to costs.