Petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage was performed on 07-03-2000.

The respondent filed H.M.O.P.NO.80 OF 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act), against the petitioner. He alleged that the petitioner became unconscious, on the next day of marriage itself, and that the fact that she was suffering from rheumatic heart disease was not known to him. Without specifying any independent ground, but citing Section 12 of the Act, he sought for annulment of the marriage. At the instance of the petitioner, the O.P. was transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad and re-numbered as O.P.No.742 of 2004. Through its order, dated 22-12-2005, the Family Court decreed the O.P. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the said decree. Since there was delay of 75 days in filing the same, she also filed I.A.No.376 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of the delay.

2. The petitioner pleaded that she had to travel to the places outside the State, and that she suffered ill-health at the relevant point of time. The respondent opposed the application. Through its order, dated 07-09-2006, the learned Family Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Smt. Anita Ahuja, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had filed relevant documents, to prove that she was out of station and unwell, at the relevant point of time, the Family Court dismissed the I.A. by proceeding on hyper-technical grounds. She contends that the Family Court itself was not sure, as to whether the decree passed by it on 22-12-2005 was ex prate in nature, or not. It is also her case that the decree was passed, on a ground which was not even pleaded and which cannot be sustained in law.

4. Sri Ghanshamdas Mandhani, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is the petitioner, who got the O.P. transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad, to suit her convenience, and it is in the revision filed by her, that this Court gave a direction for early disposal of the O.P and despite the same, she remained indifferent, in the matter of participation in the proceedings. He submits that reference to Section 12(1)(a) of the Act in the order, appears to be due to accidental slip, and that the actual ground pleaded by the respondent fits into the one under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.

5. Condonation of delay of 75 days in presenting an application to set aside and ex prate decree passed against a woman spouse, that too when grounds of ill-health and not being in station are pleaded, must not have presented any difficulty for the Court. It must not be forgotten that the order passed in such application would have a bearing on the sustenance or severance of the matrimonial relationship and a technical or pedantic approach must always be avoided, in such matters.

6. The petitioner had not only pleaded that she was not in Hyderabad at a time, when the O.P. was taken up for hearing, but has also filed the railway tickets in proof of her contention. She filed medical prescriptions to buttress her plea that she was unwell. The learned Family Judge, Hyderabad, referred to many instances of absence, on the part of the petitioner, and on all the occasions, the grounds of ill-health of the petitioner were pleaded. There is nothing unnatural about it, since the ground pleaded by the respondent is that on the next date of marriage itself, the petitioner became unconscious. The record also discloses that the petitioner is undergoing treatment, for her ailment.

7. A copy of the order and decree, dated 22-12-2005, is placed before this Court. There are certain aspects, which cannot be countenanced in law. Though this C.R.P. is filed against an order passed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this Court cannot but express its view, lest the parties are subjected to unnecessary litigation. Fo