ORDER

This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 05.01.2023, allowing I.A.No.174 of 2018 in H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 547 days in filing petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, vide I.A.No.113 of 2022, to set aside the ex parte order, dated 18.02.2016, passed in O.P.No.68 of 2015 granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri T.V.V. Satyanarayana Swamy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband and Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/wife. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the husband and wife.

3. The husband filed O.P.No.68 of 2015 seeking decree of divorce against the respondent. Basing on the endorsement of refusal of the notice sent through registered post and the report of the Amin of the court, the wife was set ex parte and an ex parte order, dated 18.02.2016, was passed granting decree of divorce.

4. The wife sought to condone the delay of 547 days in filing the petition seeking to set aside the ex parte order stating briefly as follows:

Her husband is an advocate by profession and that she left for her parental home in the year 2013 along with the children as her husband beat her. Later, when she went to her husband, he did not allow her into the house and had sent a petition for divorce by mutual consent and as she declined to sign the petition and waited for the answer to her renewed request to permit her to join him. As she did not get the reply, she got issued him a legal notice on 09.05.2017 expressing her willingness to join her husband. But, he gave a reply notice with false averments. By virtue of reply notice, for the first time, she came to know that her husband filed O.P.No.68 of 2015 and obtained an ex parte order on 18.02.2016. She never resided at Peddapuram or nearby places. Except her marriage was performed at Sri Satyanarayana Swamy temple, Annavaram, within the jurisdiction of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, no other part of cause of action is within the jurisdiction of that Court. She and her husband lastly resided together at Eluru, West Godavari District. The approach of her husband shows that he purposefully filed O.P.No.68 of 2015 at Peddapuram and no notice was served on her. Her enquiries revealed that the Court set her ex parte on the report of the Amin that she had refused to receive the summons. Thus, she filed both petitions for condonation of delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte order and for setting aside the ex parte order, dated 18.02.2016.

5. The petitions were opposed by filing counter of the husband denying the averments in the petition and further stating that there was proper service of notice and that it is only the wife who refused to receive the notice in the main petition and there is an inordinate delay of 547 days in filing the petition and the same cannot be condoned, since she knows fully well about the petition seeking divorce filed by her husband at the time of the service of notice through Court Amin.

6. After hearing both parties and considering the legal propositions cited by both the parties, the trial Court allowed the petitions observing that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is sufficient reason and that it is a fit case to take a liberal approach to allow the petitions. While allowing the petitions, costs of Rs.2,000/- were imposed on the wife payable to the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Peddapuram.

7. Having been aggrieved by the order, the husband filed this revision petition claiming that the trial Court condoned the delay without there being no sufficient cause and that the trial Court ought to have seen that the wife had knowledge of filing the divorce petition and yet did not choose to contest the HMOP and that reasons given by the trial Court in allowing the petition are no