The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order in FCOP No. 943 of 2023 dated 30-10-2023 on the file of the Judje Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar, pending the disposal of the above CRP No. of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M S N PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. S PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER i t TI{E IIONOUITABLN, SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No.l349 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. M.S.N. Prasad, learned counscL lbr thc petitioner, Mr. S. Prabhakar l{eddy, learned counscl lbr the respondent and perused the record

2. The instant civil revision petition has been Iiled undcr Article 221 of the Constitution of lndia assailing the or.cler datcd

07.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.l237 of 2024 in F.C.OI,.No.940 ol 2023 by the learned Family Court, Ranga Redcll, l)is111s1, ,, L.B.Nagar (lor short, 'trial Court')

3. l/ide the impugned order datecl 0'7.03.2025, thc trial Coull has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner-rvif'e undcr Order IX Rule l3 of'CPC seeking to condone the dclay o1274 drys in filing the petition to set aside the cx parte order and clecree datcd

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

4. The facts in a nutshell are that the FCOP was lilcd by thc rcspondent-husba nd seeking for a decree ol divorcc under the provisions of Hindu Marriagc Act, 1955. The FCOp u,as filed in 2 July,2023. Notice was issucd to the petitioner-wife and as there was no representation fronr her, she was proceeded ex parte'

5. Thus, from the lactual matrix itsell, it could be evident that the trial Courl decidcd thc divolcc petition iiled by the husband in an extraordinary haste mallner in just about three rnonths period' The petition for divorcc when it is filed, the first thing that is expectcd of the trial Court is that to try as uruch as in ensuring that there is conciliation ploccedings drawn aud subsequently, the rnatter be sent in lor r-r-rediatior-r to explore thc possibility of reunion and finally, nonetheless, il all other options I'ail for settlement between the parlies should the trial Courl make eflorts in dcciding the petition lbr divorce on its orvn nrerits. At the first instauce itself, notice issuecl seems to havc been servcd upon the rnaid olthe petitioncr-wi t-e and on rvhich the Court has proceeded ex parte' thus, notice has not bcen ettectively served upon the petitioner'

6.Ttrepetitionlorrlivorccissuchwhereutmostsensitivityisto be shown to the cause raised to bc adjudicated' it is not to be considered on par with any othcr adversarial litigation' When a petition for divorce is filed, more particularly, when it is flled on -.itft+! - -.- s9. 3 behalf of thc husband, the trial Court is expectcd to sLrbject thc parties for conciliation/mediation and explorc the possibility ot. settlement and only in the event if this results in failurc. shoultl the trial Clourl plocectl to decide the matter or-r its o,"vn rncrrts. [n thc instant casc, there does not seent to be any such eflorts rnade o, the part of the trial (-'ourt and thcrc appears to be some un(lue haste shorv'on the part.f the respondent in getting thc op itsclldeciclecl ex purta, that too in so short a period.

7. 1'hough thc lcarned counsel lor the petitioner rule the objection of the (irurr in the contentions ol the affidavit, wrrerein, she has admitted the fact that the notice sent was received at rhe resiclcnce, but what is stated *,as that they lvere uot availill)le at rhc house lbr a considcrable period of time and it rvas sen,etl upon the maid, w,ho did not imrnediately intimatc the petitioner in rcspect ol the same. 'fhe said contention appears to be a plausible contention as there is no material to dispute the aforesaid contention.

8. Anothcr aspcct which needs to be considercd is that though the er parte dccree is passed on 30.10.2023, the petitioncr has filed petition under Ordcr. IX Rule l2 of CpC on 30.0g.2024 sceking lbr. / 4 , -ir# settir-rg asidc of thc er parte order and decree datcd 30. 10.2023 in around l0 months time with the dclay of tust,274 days. If at atl, if the trial Court was no[ conviuccd u'ith thc rcasons shorvn for the delay that has occuned, the trial C-ourt could have taken a rnore pragmatic view in allowing the sante after imposing some costs so that the rnatter could had beer.r adludicated upon on its own merits after heating both the palties more particulariy the pctitioner-r'v ife. g. .ln the given t-acts arrd circutrtstances olthe casc, this Couft is compelleci to allow the prcsent Civii Revision I'etition setting aside the order dated 07.0-1.2025 passed by thc trial Court in l.A.No.l237 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.940 of 2023. 'l his Courl also, as a collsequence allows the petition sccking for setting aside of the ex parte order and the matlcr is remitted back belbtc thc lrial Courl lbr fresh adjudication procccdings to the -ctage wherc thc petitioner was proceeded cx parte by ttre tLial Cour1. Given thc f act that this Court is allowing the instant Civil Revision Petition, remitting and reopening F.C.O.P.No.940 ol'2023 to be dccided on its merits, we direct the petitioner as also thc rcspondent to reuraiu personally present before the trial Coutt on 04.08.2025. Further, on ) 5 .:. i=reQsqE . ,4.:-.-r,r?a ! .a . on 04.08.2025. the trial Court is also expected to cxplore tlre - possibility of rcconciliation or settlement between the parties either by way of conciliation or ref'erring the r-natter for nredialion and thereafter, proceed and decide the rnatter' lt is made clear that both the parties shall not be required to be served any notice for thcir presence belbre the trial Courl on 04'08'2025 There shall be no order as to costs Conseclr.rently, miscellaneous petitions pending' i1' any' shall stand closed sDI- AHMED ABDHL'-"t [Hi[ ,/TRUE COPY/' SECTIOh\.---OFFICER To,

1. The Judge Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar 2 One CC to SRI M S N PRASAD Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI S PRABHAKAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD CoPies MKN/PSL / I I I ( I I I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER CRP.No.1349 of 2025 1) ,/ ,s 4 /s,/lS iit .s i\t a o ( O() 0 1 AUS 2025 * t_ t'. Siir. x c4rc1,! .--. ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION