R. NEEL KUMAR Vs. R. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-husband has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the orders dtd. 5/1/2021 in I.A.No.300 of 2020 in HMOP.No.55 of 2019 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

(2.) Brief facts :- The revision petitioner is the petitioner in HMOP.No.55 of 2019, filed an application under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage dtd. 15/4/2006 with the respondent-wife on certain allegations. Notice was served in that O.P., but, inspite of receipt of notice, respondent-wife remained absent. Consequently, she was set ex parte and on the next date of hearing, evidence of petitioner-husband was recorded as PW-1, Exs.A-1 to A-3 documents were marked and on the same day, petition was allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was dissolved. Respondent-wife has come to know about the same only when she has sent information to the petitioner about the death of her father on 26/7/2020. On receiving such information, it appears the petitioner-husband has stated that he is in no way concerned with the respondent as the marriage was dissolved, judgment was delivered on 27/9/2019 itself. Then the respondent herein has consulted her counsel and filed an application vide I.A.No.300 of 2020 under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 270 days along with interlocutory application vide I.A.No.363 of 2020 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dtd. 27/9/2019 in HMOP.No.55 of 2019. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, while dealing with the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.300 of 2020 in the said HMOP, condoned the delay of 270 days in filling the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. In para 6 of the order impugned, it is observed that the petitioner-wife has specifically stated that the respondent-husband has promised that he will withdraw the divorce petition on the next date of hearing and requested her to stay with her parents for few days as her father was ill. Believing the words of the husband, the wife stayed back with her parents. In the meanwhile, her father, while undergoing treatment, died on 26/7/2020.

(3.) In support of the petition filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, the respondent-wife has filed her affidavit before the trial Court, wherein, it is averred at para 3 that originally, the said HMOP.No.55 of 2019 was posted to 4/9/2019 for her appearance and when she was absent, she was set ex parte. In fact, from 10/3/2019 onwards, when she was necked out from her matrimonial house, she has been living with her old-aged parents and immediately on receipt of notices in HMOP.No.55 of 2019 a panchayat was held, she along with her family members and well-wishers, went to the house of husband, questioned about filing of divorce case, matter was amicably settled in the presence of elders and the husband has agreed to take back her into his conjugal society with a promise that he will withdraw the divorce O.P. filed by him and also requested her to stay with her parents for some time as her father fell seriously ill. The wife, who is the petitioner in I.A.No.300 of 2020 filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, has clearly explained in her affidavit that believing the words of her husband, she kept silent and stayed with her parents and when her father died, on 26/7/2020, she sent a message to her husband. Then the true facts have come to light to the effect that instead of withdrawing the divorce O.P.No.55 of 2019, he has pursued it, obtained an ex parte decree behind and her back. Accordingly, she consulted her counsel immediately and filed a petition on 3/8/2020. Thus, the delay of 270 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is not at all intentional, but as she bonafidely believed the version of her husband, stayed with her parents, attending her father who was sick.