JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed by the wife against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sojat, dated 2.3.1996, accepting the respondent's application filed under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and declaring the marriage of parties, to be void. 3. The facts are that on 9.1.1996, respondent filed an application, before the learned trial Court under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). alleging, inter alia that, parties were married on 28.1.1993, and by a decree for dissolution of marriage dated 11.10.1995, marriage has been dissolved. However, it was alleged that his consent for the marriage was obtained by mispresentation of material facts, concerning the respondent, namely that persons, who represented themselves, to be parents of the appellant, were not legally wedded, rather so-called mother was already in married with one Uda Ram, which marriage had not been dissolved, rather petition for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed, and she was living adulterous life with Champalal, and that had this fact disclosed, he would not have given his consent. 4. A notice of this petition, for hearing on 8.2.1996 was sent. On 8.2.1996, the learned trial Court recorded that notice of non-petitioner (present appellant) has been received duly served, and nobody has appeared, whether in person or through lawyer till 4.00 PM. and therefore, the matter was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, respondent's evidence was recorded, consisting of himself, Shyarn Sunder and Hanman Ram, and thereafter, the impugned decree has been passed. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that of course summons were served on her, but, the case was being tried at Sojat. while she was living at Ganganagar, and she had no means to contest the litigation, and therefore, she consulted two Advocates at Ganganagar, both of them, advised her to demand maintenance and legal expenses, and wait for the fresh summons of the Court, and therefore, on 29.1.1996, appellant sent an application to the learned trial Court, through registered letter, to order for defrayal of legal expenses of Rs. 5000/-, so that, she could defend the case pending before him, but then, she did not receive any reply from the learned Addl. 5000/-, so that, she could defend the case pending before him, but then, she did not receive any reply from the learned Addl. District Judge, and that it was revealed during maintenance proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the appellant that present respondent has obtained a decree for declaring the marriage to be void, whereupon, she filed an application before the learned trial Court, on 23.3.1996. It is contended that on these circumstances, the ex-parte decree is required to be set aside, and the matter be sent back for fresh trial in accordance with law, after giving an adequate opportunity to the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the request. 7. I have perused the record, and found that appellant sent an application, as contended. which was duly received in the office of learned trial Court on 8.2.1996 itself, which is available on record. Unfortunately, on 25 8.2.1996, when the case was taken up, the learned trial Court did not even advert to that application. may be that, the Court might have been inclined to issue fresh notice to the petitioner. Likewise, it is also well neigh possible that learned trial Court would not have bended any ear to that application. But then, in any case, the application was required to be considered, and some order passed thereon, or in any case, the record must reflect that something was done to that application. 8. This is all the more significant, in the circumstances of the present case, where circumstances are writ large, namely that, the marriage of the parties, was solemnised on 28.1.1993 only and very shortly, the parties fell as apart, on 11.10.1995 itself, with the decree for dissolution of marriage. As the things had it, that also happens to be an ex-pane decree. It is informed by learned counsel for the appellant that wife has already initiated proceeding at Ganganagar Court, for maintenance, way back on 7.4.1995, i.e. before passing of the decree for dissolution of marriage. 9. It is, in these circumstances that on 9.1.1996, the present application has been filed u/S. of the Act. It clearly appears prima facie that husband has been taken the advantage of the distant location of the wife, and it was a case, where wife was entitled to be given reasonable opportunity of defending the case. 10. 9. It is, in these circumstances that on 9.1.1996, the present application has been filed u/S. of the Act. It clearly appears prima facie that husband has been taken the advantage of the distant location of the wife, and it was a case, where wife was entitled to be given reasonable opportunity of defending the case. 10. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the ex-parte decree, and send the matter back to the learned trial Court, for deciding it afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant-wife. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The matter is sent back to the learned trial Court, to decide the husband's application under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, afresh in accordance with law, after giving to the appellant proper opportunity to defend the case, and hearing. The record of learned trial Court be returned. *******