R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the common order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in the applications I.A. No. 37/2017 and I.A. No. 38/2017 in O.P. No. 527/2016.

2. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife.

3. The appellant filed O.P. No. 527/2016 in the Family Court for granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent was set ex-parte in the case. An ex-parte decree of divorce was passed against her on 19.10.2016.

4. The respondent filed an application as I.A. No. 37/2017 for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against her. She also filed I.A. No. 38/2017 for condoning the delay of 48 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The appellant filed counter affidavit opposing the applications. As per the common order dated 25.07.2018, the Family Court allowed both applications and set aside the ex-parte decree passed against the respondent. The husband has come up in appeal challenging the aforesaid order.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The ex-parte decree of divorce was passed against the respondent on 19.10.2016. There was only a delay of 48 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex part decree. The respondent had pleaded before the lower court that she had delivered a premature baby on 14.07.2016 in a hospital at Thane through cesarean operation and she had to take rest for a period of three months and therefore, she could not appear before the Family Court on the date of hearing of the case. She also pleaded that she could not travel and come to Ernakulam and contact her lawyer. This resulted in the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. She produced Ext.A1 medical certificate to prove the aforesaid plea.

7. The appellant had contended before the lower court that the respondent was in Ernakulam till 29.09.2016 and nothing prevented her from appearing before the Family Court on the date of hearing of the case. The appellant further contended that he had remarried on 12.07.2018 and therefore, the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree had become infructuous.

8. On the basis of Ext.A1 medical certificate produced by the respondent, the Family Court was satisfied that she had shown sufficient cause for the delay of 48 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The Family Court took note of the fact that the respondent had delivered a premature baby on 14.07.2016 and for that reason, she could not appear before the court on the date of hearing of the case. We see no reason to find that the conclusions reached by the Family Court in this regard are in any way illegal or improper. Admittedly, the respondent is residing in Mumbai. There can be no dispute with regard to the fact that she had delivered a premature baby on 14.07.2016 in a hospital at Thane. Therefore, it is quite natural that she had to take rest for some period after the delivery.

9. The fact that the respondent had come to Ernakulam on 29.09.2016 and gave complaint against the appellant to the police does not necessarily mean that on the date of hearing of the case she was in Ernakulam.

10. The appellant has raised a plea that he remarried on 12.07.2018 and therefore, the application filed by the respondent for setting aside the ex-parte decree had become infructuous.

11. In the instant case, the appellant had remarried on 12.07.2018. Admittedly, it was after receiving notice in the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and during the pendency of that application that the appellant remarried another lady.

12. The question arises whether remarriage of the spouse who obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce, after the filing of the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree by the opposite spouse would render such application infructuous.

13. At this juncture, we may refer to Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which rea