1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.12.2010 made in I.A. No.58 of 2009 in H.M.O.P. No.45 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the husband of the respondent filed an H.M.O.P. No.45 of 2008 before the court below under Section 13 of Hindu Marriages Act seeking divorce. In spite of service of notice, the respondent herein was called absent and set exparte. Based on the exparte evidence, the court below allowed the petition and granted divorce in favour of the petitioner herein. However, the respondent herein filed I.A. No.58 of 2009 under Section

5 of Limitation Act and Section 151 of C.P.C. to condone the delay of 389 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the delay was not satisfactorily explained by the respondent herein. However, the court below liberally allowed the petit