VARALAKSHMI Vs. C HANUMANTHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order of dismissal of her Interlocutory Application No. 105/1991 in O.P. No.40/1990 dated 25th September, 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate fudge, Chittoor.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. Bhatt, representing Mr. E. Kalyanram, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner preferred the application before the Court-below under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 316 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her in O.P.No. 40/1990 on 6-8-1990. He submits that the petitioner is the respondent in the main O.P. and her husband filed the above O.P. for divorce on false allegations and obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against her on 6-8-1990. The petitioner had no knowledge about the filing of the above said O.P. and she was not served with notice or summons either through Court or Post. He submits that in the 1st week of May, 1990, while she was pregnant, her husband left her at her parent's house at Bangalore for confinement, she was admitted in Vani Vilas Hospital on 27-5-1990 and she begot a female child on 28-5-1990. As her health condition was not good, she was admitted in the hospital as an in-patient till 7-6-1990; she was advised regular medical check up every Thursday; as such, she resided with her sister, Sujatha at Bommana Halli till the end of August, 1990. Lateron, she resided with her parents at Koramangala village and returned to her husband's house at Varidikuppam in the month of December and lived with him for a few days. As her health deteriorated, she was again sent to Bangalore for medical treatment. After prolonged medical treatment she returned to her husband's house, but she was not allowed inside his house. In spite of his protest, she entered the house and the respondent brought some policemen and showed her the decree of divorce. Then only the petitioner came to know about the decree passed against her. Thereafter, she immediately came to Chittoor and obtained certified copy of the decree and came to know that the O.P. was posted on 23-7-1990 for her appearance and as she did not appear, she was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed against her on 6-8-1990.