THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No.1349 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Mr. M.S.N. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. The instant civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.1237 of 2024 in F.C.OP.No.940 of 2023 by the learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar (for short, ‘trial Court’).

3. Vide the impugned order dated 07.03.2025, the trial Court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking to condone the delay of 274 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order and decree dated

30.10.2023 passed in F.C.O.P.No.940 of 2023 was filed.

4. The facts in a nutshell are that the FCOP was filed by the respondent-husband seeking for a decree of divorce under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The FCOP was filed in July, 2023. Notice was issued to the petitioner-wife and as there was no representation from her, she was proceeded ex parte.

5. Thus, from the factual matrix itself, it could be evident that the trial Court decided the divorce petition filed by the husband in an extraordinary haste manner in just about three months period. The petition for divorce when it is filed, the first thing that is expected of the trial Court is that to try as much as in ensuring that there is conciliation proceedings drawn and subsequently, the matter be sent in for mediation to explore the possibility of reunion and finally, nonetheless, if all other options fail for settlement between the parties should the trial Court make efforts in deciding the petition for divorce on its own merits. At the first instance itself, notice issued seems to have been served upon the maid of the petitioner-wife and on which the Court has proceeded ex parte, thus, notice has not been effectively served upon the petitioner.

6. The petition for divorce is such where utmost sensitivity is to be shown to the cause raised to be adjudicated. It is not to be considered on par with any other adversarial litigation. When a petition for divorce is filed, more particularly, when it is filed on behalf of the husband, the trial Court is expected to subject the parties for conciliation/mediation and explore the possibility of settlement and only in the event if this results in failure, should the trial Court proceed to decide the matter on its own merits. In the instant case, there does not seem to be any such efforts made on the part of the trial Court and there appears to be some undue haste shown on the part of the respondent in getting the OP itself decided ex parte, that too in so short a period.

7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner rule the objection of the Court in the contentions of the affidavit, wherein, she has admitted the fact that the notice sent was received at the residence, but what is stated was that they were not available at the house for a considerable period of time and it was served upon the maid, who did not immediately intimate the petitioner in respect of the same. The said contention appears to be a plausible contention as there is no material to dispute the aforesaid contention.

8. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that though the ex parte decree is passed on 30.10.2023, the petitioner has filed petition under Order IX Rule 12 of CPC on 30.08.2024 seeking for setting aside of the ex parte order and decree dated 30.10.2023 in around 10 months time with the delay of just 274 days. If at all, if the trial Court was not convinced with the reasons shown for the delay that has occurred, the trial Court could have taken a more pragmatic view in allowing the same after imposing some costs so that the matter could had been adjudicated upon on its own merits after hearing both the parties more particularly the petitioner-wife.

9. In the given facts and circumstances of the