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 dated 03-04-2025 passed in I.A. No. 1063 of 2023 in O.p, No.'126 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Xllt Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. C.R.P.NO. 2498 0F 2025: Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 10-1 1-2024 in l.A.No. 184 of 2023 inO.P.No. 126of 2021 onthefileof the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court cum Xlll AdditioneLl l\4etropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Between: Meheresh Masanpally, S/o. M.Dattatry Unemployed, RIO H.NO.3-4-839, Flat Barkatpura, Hyderabad Rao, aged aLout 42 years, Occ.- No. 102, CAT Avenue Apartments, ...PETITI ONER/ RESPONDENT AND Srirambhatla Manasa, D/o.Srirambhatla Krishna Murthy, agel about 36 years, Occ.- Housewife, RlO. H.No.20-496/8, BalajiBrundavana Colony, College Road Mancherial, Near Gramilla High School, Mancherial, Adilabad, Telangana ...RESPONDENT/ Petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to stay all proceedings in O. P. No.'1 26 of 2021 on the file of tl- e Honorable Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Xlll Addl. It/letropolitan Sessrons . udge Hyderabad, and lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to suspend the order dated 10/1 1/2024 passed in l.A No. 184 ol 2023 in O.P. No.126 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Familv Court-cum-Xlll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner in both : Ms. B. RACHNA REDDY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHD BASEER RIYAZ Counsel for the Respondent in both : The Court made the following Common Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Ciwil Revision Petition No.249 7 of2O25 Civil Revision Petition No. 2498 of 2025 COMM ON ORDER: Since the issue arising out of the instant Civil Revision Petitions is similar and the parties thereto are also same' they are being heard and disposed of by this Common Order' 2: Heard Ms. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr' Mohd' Baseer Riyaz' learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions'

3. Civil Revision Petition No'2497 of 2025 is frled by the petitioner under Articl e 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 03.O4.2O25 in I'A'No'1063 of 2023 in O'P'No'126 of 2O2L passed by the Principal Judge' Family court-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad; and civil Revision Petition No.2498 of 2025 is filed by the same petitioner under Articl e 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 10.1I.2O24 in I.A'No'184 of 2023 in O'P'No'126 of 2O2l passed by the Principal Judge, Family court-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad' (for short' 'the impugned orders').

4. The petitioner and respondent herein are hrrsband and wife

5. Initially, the petitioner (husband) has filed tlle above O.P. under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage lrct, 1955 pra).rng the Court for grant of decree of divorce by dissoluing the marriage between the petitioner and respondent which was solemnized on t4.t2.20t8.

6. Vide the impugned orders, the Trial Court has allowed I.A.No.1063 of 2023 rn O.P.No.126 of 2O2I filed by the respondent (wife) under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Proce<lure Code, 1908 seeking to set aside the ex parte order and decree dated Ol.ll.2O2l, and also allowed I.A.No.184 of 2023 rn O.P.No.126 of 2021, which is an application filed under S ection 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying the Trial Court to condone the delay of (285) days in filing the application under Orler 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking to set aside tlrc ex parte decree and order dated Ol .Il.2O2l passed in O.P.No.126 of 2O2I.

7. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instemt Civil Revision Petitions.

8. l,earned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that, upon due service of notice the respondent did not ! appear before the Trial Court and contested the case; therefore' the learned Trial Court proceeded ex parte against the respondent - . !.ul*{.{lEI. **i"- and allowed the o.P.No. 1 26 0f 2021 on o I . 1 1.2021 al1d dissolved the ma,rriage that took place between the petitioner and respondent on 14. l2.2ol8 by granting a decree of divorce; subsequently, after a gap of (285) days, the respondent (wife) has moved the above two applications, viz', I'A'No'1063 of 2024 and I.A.No.184 of 2023 before the Trial Court; and the Trial Court' upon due consideration of the contentions ald submissions put forth by tlle parties, allowed the above two I'A's vide separate orders for the pulpose of deciding the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law.

9. As regards Section 5 application, viz', I'A'No'184 of 2023 tn o.P.No.126of2o2|,learnedSeniorCounselcontendedthatitwas not a case where the respondent (wife) was not awaJe of the proceedings or that she was not aware of the proceedings before the Trial Court, still the respondent has chosen to remain ex parte and therefore there does not seem to be any good ground available to the Trial Court to allow the above two applications vide the impugned orders, which are under challenge in the instant Revisions. i I I 1(). According to learned Senior Counsel, a spearing for the petitioner, the Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there was no proper and justifrable ground brought to the notice of the Court so as to a-llow the two applications vicle the impugned orders; the fact that the respondent having kno'x,Jedge of pendency of the proceedings in the above O.P. before the Trial Court stands established from a Transfer O.P. that the respondent had f,rled before this Court, rride Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Pctition No.55 of 2O2l; however, vide order dated 05.11.202I, a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said Transfer Civil Miscellaleous Petition No.55 of 2O2l for default. as there was no representation on behalf of the respondent.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner f-rrther contended that the findings arrived at by the Trial Court r.r'hile allowing the two petitions are totally irrelevant and contrary to the judicial dictums of the recent past; the Trial Court, in spite of there being no suflicient grounds available, very presumpti.rely and without justifrable explanation got itself convinced that a case is being made out Qy the respondent for condoning the deiay; though there was delay of (285) days in liling the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code,'1908 seeking tc, set aside the ex parte decree arrd order dated O1.ll.2O2l in O.P.No.126 of 2021, , t\ the Triat Court ought to har.e,,ponst${Sd..slri-9tly ae*tQ-lt}9.ggiJ€S**'* " advanced by the respondent seeking for condonation of the said delay; the Trial Court has not been informed of the fact that the respondent in between had hled the above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.55 of 2O2l which got dismissed for default by a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 05.ll.2O2l, which by itself would establish that respondent was quite aware of the F.C'O'P' pending before the Trial Court where the petitioner has sought for dissolution of marriage; and, since there was also suppression of material facts by the respondent in the course of pursuing the remedy of setting aside of tlle ex parte order and decree, the Trial Court ought not to have shown any sympathy towards the respondent and rather the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the above two applications on the ground of suppression of material facts; and therefore prayed that the instant Civil Revision Petitions be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders.

12. The factual matrix of the case is all admitted on either side so far as the post at which the respondent was working' The fact which is most relevant at this juncture to consider is that the F.C.O.P. is one which was filed in November' 2O2O during which period the COVID Pandemic was at its peak' Similarly' the date l on which tl: e ex parte de$ee and order was passed was on Ol.Ll.2O2l. Yet another aspect which needs consideration is that the application filed under Section 5 of the LirrLitation Act, 1963, viz., I.A.No.184 of 2023 in O.P.No. 126 of 2'021, seeking for condonation of delay of (285) days was one whi,:h was decided as early as on 10.11.2024. However, the instant Rr:visions have been filed by the petitioner now only in June, 2025 r.r.hich itself is with some considerable delay. Within the gap of thes;e six months, the petitioner herein as such has not challenged the said order, and rather participated in ttre further proceedings of the matter till the time of filing of the instant Revisions. Meanwhile. I.A.No.1063 of 2023 in O.P.No.126 ol 2O2L, filed by the respor_-dent (wife) under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking to set aside the ex parte order and decree dated 01.11.2021, was also allowed by the Trial Court on 03.04.2025. Therefore, the petitioner, after a gap of six months, i.e., after thr: impugned order was passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No. 184 of 2023 in O.p.No.126 of 2O2l seeking for condonation of delay of (285) days was one which was decided as early as on 10.11.2024, woke up from slumber and decided to challenge the said order.

13. Also, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the fact that the FCOP was one which was filed on 30.ll.2O2O, during which period the CoVID P-q+-demjggS,g.pr.evelligg,*3Jrd-IhE -9{--*^ parte decree and order was passed was on Ol'll'2021 in O.P.No.126 of 2O2l which again was during the COVID Pandemic' Therefore, during the COVID Pandemic period, if ttre respondent for some reason or the other was not in a position to attend the proceedings, in the opinion of this Court, there was sufficient causeavailabletotheTrialCourttohaveallowedtheabovetwo I.A.s. Yet, another aspect which needs consideration is that undoubtedly in a family dispute, more particularly in a case divorce, what is to be considered paramount by the Trial Court is thatofputtingtherivalpartnersformediation/conciliation/ settlement at all levels, and only after all the attempts for mediation / conciliation / settlement fail, should the Court proceed to decide the case on its merits'

14. In the instant case, admittedly the proceedings before the Trial Court could not have happened physically as there was COVID Pandemic prevailing at that relevant point of time' It also appealstlrateventheTransferCivitMiscellaneousPetitionwhich tJle respondent has filed was also during the COVID Pandemic andwhichgotdismissedfordefaultttrereafter.Yetanotheraspect whichisweighinginthemindoftheCourtisthatifoneofthe spouses at a later stage seek for setting aside of the ex parte .':.! decree and order dated O1.11.2021 in O.P.No. 126 of 2021, the family dispute particularly the petition seeking lbr divorce should not and cannot be equated with any other ad\.ersarial litigation rather it is looked up with a more liberal approach and view.

15. Under the circumstances, if the Trial Court has taken a liberal view, the same cannot be found fault urth, nor can it be said to be illegal or contrary. True it is that th:re appears to be some delay on the part of respondent in approaching the Court even beyond the period of limitation providec lty the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the period that got lapsed on account of COVID Pandemic. But, since it was an applicati,rn filed by the respondent seeking for setting aside of the ex pa.rte decree and order, dated Ol.ll.2o2l in O.P.No.126 of 2021 , thre libera-l view taken by the Trial Court in allowing the I.A. deserves to be sustained.

16. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is cf the considered opinion that no strong case has been made out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner calling for int,:rference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Cirril Revision Petitions stands dismissed. : I { I I I t, I /, L7. However, it is ordered that nqw*-thal the r'EFB8CIC,E{&hg&.*'*"-, entered appearance and the matter now stands reopened by the Trial Court, considering the fact ttrat the FCOP is of the year 2O21 whichisfiveyearsold.,theTrialCourtshallensrrrethatallefforts be made to conclude the trial at the earliest preferably within an outer limit of one (01) year from the next date of hearing before tJre Trial Court. Further, the Trial Court is directed to stick to the said Limeline of one year from the next date of hearing' t t

18. Another relief which the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has sought for on behalf of the petitioner is that' the petitioner herein meanwhile has got admission into Ph'D' at I'I'T' Kharagpur and as of now he is at Kharagpur and therefore he may frnd it difficult to enter appea'rance before the Trial Court frequently. The solution for the grievance of the petitioner would be that on a given date where he is not in a position to appea-r before the Trial Court physically, ttre petitioner is permitted to take appropriate permission from the Trial Court and represent himself virtually so ttrat the proceedings do not affect adversely at any point of time- Upon such prayer being made by the petitioner, the Trial Court shall consider the same and permit the petitioner to represent his case virtually' 1\

19. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No costs 2o. As a sequel, miscellaneous applicatiorrs perrding if any, shall stand closed. 1 To, SD/. A SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI n olt\l l OFFTCER

1. The Principal Judge, Family Court cum Xlll Additional lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRl. MOHD BASEER RIYAZ Advocate [OI,UC] 3. Two CD Copies kul/PSL W I t HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/2025 J 02 SEP 8r5 * D -!'-:i':)- COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.2497 and 2498 ol 2025 DISMISSING THE BOTH CIVII, REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 1L ,l \,))l ll1 I 1i a