“For want of a nail, the shoe was lost

For want of a shoe, the horse was lost

For want of a horse, the rider was lost

For want of a rider, the message was lost

For want of a message, the battle was lost

For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost and all for the want of a horseshoe nail”

- Benjamin Franklin

1.1. Here is a case, where, for want of care, kingdom of matrimony is lost for the revision petitioner.

2. The following issues have been raised by the revision petitioner in this case:-

1. When a marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce and when the time for preferring the appeal is over, whether it shall be lawful for either party to marry again thereafter, as contemplated under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act?

2. When the husband who obtained the decree for divorce chooses to marry after the appeal time is over, and thereby exercised his right under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whether that right can be taken away, when there is inordinate and shocking delay in prosecuting the application to set aside the exparte decree, filed by the wife?

3. When the remarriage contracted is valid and on account of the remarriage, the right of the wife (remarried) intervenes, whether that would be a relevant factor to be considered in deciding the application to set aside the exparte decree/ to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte?

4. When there is a decree crystalizing the rights and obligations of either spouse and on account of the same, there is a subsequent marriage resulting in the third party rights having been allowed to intervene, whether this subsequent event (marriage) is a crucial factor to be taken into account, as there cannot be two valid marriages of a person existing at the same time?

3. In order to decide these issues, the path traveled by this case, as is evident from the dates and events, are relevant. These dates and events, as furnished by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/wife, is a tell-tale of the procrastinating attitude of the wife.

S.No.	Date	Events
1.	28.03.2007	Marriage between the revision petitioner/wife and the respondent at Swamimalai Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thanjavur.
2.	04.01.2008	Out of the wedlock the petitioner gave birth to a male child in a hospital at Tanjore.
3.	04.08.2008	The respondent (husband) filed HMOP No.87/2008 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Tambaram, seeking divorce.
4.	11.02.2010	The Sub-ordinate Judge, Tamabaram set the petitioner exparte
5.	15.04.2010	The petitioner filed set aside petition before the Sub-ordiante Judge, Tambaram with a delay of 24 days.
6.	17.06.2010	An exparte decree was passed by Sub-ordinate Judge, Tamabaram.
7.	12.04.2012	The petition to condone the delay was dismissed for default and on the same day restoration petition filed with A.O.S.
8.	05.02.2014	I.A.No.200 of 2011, the petition to condone the delay has been dismissed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, Tambaram
9.	06.04.2014	The respondent (husband) has contracted second marriage. (According to the marriage certificate)
10.	11.07.2014	Registered the second marriage at Kundrathur Registered Office.
11.	07.07.2014	The petitioner has filed this present CRP.No.3237 of 2014.

4. The details furnished gives the answer for the following questions:-

When the exparte decree has been passed on 17.06.2010, and when the husband has contracted second marriage on 06.04.2014 i.e., nearly 4 years less two months (17.06.2010 to 06.04.2014), whether this remarriage can be overlooked, while considering an application to set aside the exparte decree filed by the wife (along with an application to condone the delay)?

4.1. When the exparte decree has been passed on 17.06.2010, whether the conduct of the wife in