1. The petitioner and the respondent were married in the year 1994 and they had two children. Respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.626 of 2005 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), for dissolution of the marriage and for a direction to the petitioner to continue with the custody and care of the children. The O.P., was decreed ex parte on 11.11.2005. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 183 days, in presenting the application, she filed I.A.No.550 of 2006, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. The petitioner pleaded that she was staying with her mother at Kadapa, on being sent away by the respondent, whereas the summons were sent to the residence of her brother. She further pleaded that she came to know about the filing of the O.P., in the month of October, and soon thereafter, she asked her brother to take necessary steps. It was alleged that by the time she has taken necessary steps, the O.P., was decreed ex parte.

3. The respondent opposed the application by filing a counter-affidavit. It is stated that despite receiving notice in the O.P., and having knowledge about the pendency of the same, the petitioner remained silent and that the enormous delay of 183 days was not at all explained.

4. Through its order, dated 16.04.2007, the learned Family Judge, dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision.

5. Smt.Venkateswari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that her client was put to serious harassment, for the last several years, by the respondent, after developing illicit relations with some other woman. She further contends that the trial Court ought to have taken note of the plight of the petitioner in the matter of examining the application for condonation of delay, particularly when the O.P., came to be decreed hardly within few months from the date of filing. She contends that the notice was sent to a wrong address deliberately with a view to obtain ex parte decree, so that the respondent can marry another woman, which he did on 15.02.2006.

6. Sri G.Rama Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the O.P., was presented by pleading necessary facts, under Section 13 of the Act. He contends that even after receiving notice, in the O.P., the petitioner did not turn up and the Family Judge was left with no alternative, except to decree the O.P., ex parte. Learned Counsel submits that no explanation, worth its name was offered for the enormous delay of more than 6 months, in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.

7. The controversy in this C.R.P., is only about the condonation of delay of 183 days in presenting the application to set aside the ex parte decree for divorce.

8. There does not exist any hard and fast rule in the matter of examining the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or exercising the discretion therein. The remedies provided for under various statutes are required to be availed, within the time stipulated therefor. With the expiry of the prescribed time, valuable rights accrue to the opposite parties. Howsoever desirable it may be, to insist that petition, or applications or appeals must be filed within the period of limitation, several factors that disable the parties cannot be ignored. It is in recognition of this, that provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation Act are incorporated, empowering the Courts or Tribunals, to condone the delay, if satisfactory explanation is offered. Much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Though the relevant provisions of law do not make any distinction, the factors such as the stage of proceedings, the consequences that ensue on account of the delay being not condoned would have their own bearing in the exercise of discretion by the Court or ref