IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Order reserved on : 11.11.2025 Order pronounced on : 05.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP.No.2471 of 2025 & CMP.No.14167 of 2025 Meenakshi ... Petitioner Vs.

Rani Padmini ... Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order and decree dated 04.04.2025 made in I.A.No.182 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.No.50 of 2006 by the Family Court, Tiruvarur @ Mannargudi.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Balaji for Mrs.Radhika Boopathi For Respondent : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan Senior Counsel for Mr.Pandi Thennavan

ORDER

The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the respondent, aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, Thiruvarur at Manargudi, condoning the delay of 3618 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 20-07-2007.

2.I have heard Mr.T.Balaji for Mrs.Radhika Bhoopathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Pandi Thennavan, learned counsel for the respondent. 3.The respondent and the petitioner's son were husband and wife, having been married to each other on 19-08-1998. According to the petitioner, the respondent left the matrimonial home on 09-08-2001. The husband that is the petitioner's son filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and an ex-parte order came to be passed on 14-08-2003. As the respondent did not come forward to join the husband, the petitioner's son filed proceedings for divorce in the year 2006 and even in the divorce application, the respondent did not choose to appear and an ex-parte decree came to be passed on 20-07-2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that several attempts were made to serve notice on the respondent and the notices were all returned as 'not claimed or unclaimed'. He would contend that it is not the case of the respondent that a false or incorrect address has been given by the husband and in such circumstances, the Family Court rightly proceeded to order publication and despite publication, the respondent did not choose to enter appearance in the divorce proceedings and admittedly, the husband has died and there is no purpose in seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree for dissolution.

4.Mr.T.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner would also invite my attention to the 10 documents that were relied on by the respondent's wife and would contend that none of the documents established that the notices were sent to a wrong address. He would state that the respondent could have filed at least one document to establish her correct address and admittedly the same not having been done, the Court cannot be found fault with for accepting non-service and proceeding to effect publication and thereafter set the respondent ex-parte and granting a decree for dissolution of the marriage.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the husband has executed a Will in favour of his sister's son and the respondent has not even challenged the Will, till date and therefore, there is absolutely no useful purpose to be served by condoning the delay and reopening the matrimonial proceedings, after the demise of one of the spouses. He would further state that the Family Court has clearly fell in error in condoning the huge and inordinate delay, by imposing costs. He would pray for the revision petition being allowed.

6.Per contra, Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the husband had played fraud on the respondent on more than two occasions. Even when the restitution of conjugal rights petition was filed, notice was not served on the respondent. He would contend that even in the divorce application, notice was not served. Admittedly, the respondent and the petitioner's son were residing together, even as late as in 2016, in support of which, Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 have been filed. The learned Senior Counsel