Manjusri Burgul vs Dr.Konappa S.Kuntumalla

This revision petition is filed against the orders dated 25.02.2010 in I.A.No.1348 of 2008 in O.P.No.275 of 2005 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

The aforesaid application in I.A.No.1348 of 2008 was filed by the revision petitioner herein, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 470 days in making the application to set aside the ex parte decree. It is relevant to mention here that the O.P. was filed by the husband i.e. the respondent herein against the revision petitioner/ wife, for divorce. The record reveals that the revision petitioner avoided the summons from the Court, therefore, a publication was ordered for her appearance before the Court, either in person or through an Advocate. Even after the publication, though the matter was adjourned, the respondent failed to file counter and hence, she was set ex parte on 28.04.2007. Later, an ex parte decree was passed on 29.06.2007. For setting aside the said ex parte decree, the interlocutory application in I.A.No.1348 of 2008 was filed with a delay of 470 days. The trial Court after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent/wife did not appear before the Court and did not file any counter in the O.P. inspite of giving sufficient opportunity and even after imposing costs. It is the further finding of the trial Court that the respondent failed to explain the delay of 470 days inspite of having the knowledge of passing the ex parte decree. With the aforesaid observations, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent i.e. the husband got married for the second time and is living happily with his family. Therefore, even if the CRP is allowed and the ex parte decree is set aside, nothing survives for adjudication as the respondent already got married to another woman and is leading happy marital life.

It is contended by the learned counsel for revision petitioner/wife that if the O.P. is restored, she may file a petition for permanent alimony against the respondent and accordingly prayed to allow the C.R.P. On a perusal of the entire record, it is evident that no reasons are explained by the petitioner as to the delay of 470 days. It is settled law that each day’s delay is to be explained with sufficient reasons. In the present case, as sufficient cause is not shown for the inordinate delay of 470 days, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay. However, taking into consideration the rights of the revision petitioner, liberty is given to her to pursue her remedies by filing appropriate petition before the appropriate forum for permanent alimony.

With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.