ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order passed in I.A.No.5894 of 2018 in O.P.No.2308 of 2017 on the file of learned VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai dated 20.09.2019.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent seems to have filed I.A.No.5894 of 2018 in O.P.No.2308 of 2017 under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying to condone a delay of 257 days in filing the restoration petition in O.P.No.2308 of 2017.

3. The respondent / husband had filed O.P.No.3650 of 2015 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that after the girl child was born on 21.07.2014, the wife did not turn back to the matrimonial home. The above petition was allowed exparte by order dated 14.06.2016. Thereafter, the respondent / husband seems to have approached the Family Court, Chennai and filed O.P.No.2308 of 2017 seeking for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. This O.P. Was also came to be allowed in favour of the husband by order dated 23.01.2018. Thereafter, wife had filed I.A.No.5894 of 2018 to condone the delay of 257 days in filing the restoration petition in H.M.O.P.No.2308 of 2017 and to set aside the exparte judgment and decree made in the above O.P. Dated 23.01.2018 and to restore the above H.M.O.P. On file.

4. The learned VI Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai had dismissed the said petition, viz., I.A.No.5894 of 2018 holding that the reasons proposed by the wife for condoning the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree is not convincing in view of the fact that each day delay was not explained properly and hence the court does not find it proper to condone the exorbitant delay of 257 days and dismissed the application, as against which, the present Revision Petition is filed by the wife.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / wife contended that the husband / respondent herein had deserted the petitioner and filed H.M.O.P.No.3650 of 2015 on the allegation that the wife demanded a share in the property of the parents of the husband as a condition precedent for living together. Since the husband could not meet the demands, the wife left the husband and started to live with her parents, which forced the husband to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. However, when the wife received the notice in H.M.O.P. No. 3650 of 2015, immediately, the wife approached the husband and enquired about the same, but the husband had asked her to neglect the notice, as it is only a formal notice because it is a petition filed for living together. Believing the husband's words, the wife did not take part in the family court proceedings.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that not knowing the pendency of the H.M.O.P., the wife, as usual, went and stayed with the husband for some time and returned to her parents house at the instance of the husband's instruction. Subsequently, the husband had filed O.P.No.2308 of 2017 giving a wrong address and obtained an order of exparte divorce. Thereafter, the husband had contracted second marriage with one Geethapriya. In fact, the wife, who attended the first death anniversary of husband's father, viz., father-in-law that took place in his residence on 03.02.2018, the entire family did not inform her about the dissolution of the marriage that was ordered by the Family Court on 23.01.2018. Only after the second marriage was solemnized, the wife came to know about the divorce and restitution of conjugal rights application filed by the husband by searching the court records. Thereafter, she filed a petition for condoning the delay, which was erroneously dismissed by the court below on the ground that each and every day delay was not properly explained.

7. In contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / husband filed a typed set and tw