S. P. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS relates to an application under Article 227 of the constitution of India and it is directed against Order No. 8 dated 13. 06. 2003 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2003. ( 2 ) GRIEVANCES of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows: marriage between the parties took place on 15th July, 1992 and it was duly solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Opposite party/wife during her stay at her matrimonial home was found to be addict and used to consume liqueor regularly. She insisted for separate accommodation knowing fully well that the petitioner is the only son of his parents could not afford to agree to the same. O. P. started torturing the petitioner both mentally and physically. Thereafter, on 10. 04. 1993, she left her matrimonial home on her own and started residing with her parents. Petitioner tried to bring her back but to no avail. His several letters, though received by the O. P. , were not replied to. 0. P. , however, gave birth to a male child in September, 1993 but this was not communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner being left with no choice filed an application praying for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion being Mat Suit no. 29 of 2002. Summon sent through Court by registered post returned with the endorsement 'refused'. ( 3 ) THE application was taken up for hearing on 10. 06. 02 but O. P. was absent. Petitioner was examined as PW-1 and no other evidence was adduced. Ld. Family Court by judgment and order dated 11. 06. 02 decreed the suit thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties. ( 4 ) AFTER about six months, the petitioner married the daughter of one Naresh chandra Adhikary. On 13. 01. 2003, the O. P. filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside of the ex parte decree. It was claimed therein that no notice or summons was received by her and she came to know about such divorce on 28. 12. 2002 from one Naresh chandra Adhikary who showed a xerox copy of the order of divorce. She sought for setting aside of the ex parte decree. It was claimed therein that no notice or summons was received by her and she came to know about such divorce on 28. 12. 2002 from one Naresh chandra Adhikary who showed a xerox copy of the order of divorce. She sought for setting aside of the ex parte decree. ( 5 ) IT was contested by the present petitioner by filing written objection. He alleged that the application was barred by limitation. He claimed that the present O. P. did not reply to the letters sent by him and he filed the suit after waiting for about ten years. He also stated that he had nothing to do with the alleged non-service of summons and the ld. Family Court after being satisfied as to the service of the summons decreed the suit to ex parte. ( 6 ) LEARNED Family Court by order dated 13. 6. 03 allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C. P. Code thereby setting aside the exparte decree and observed therein that -"without properly serving the summons upon Karuna Deb Roy by practising fraud upon the Court Debasish Deb Roy has obtained the ex parte decree on 11. 6. 2002. " ( 7 ) THE petitioner in the present case has alleged that the ld. Family Court did not consider the question of limitation and failed to appreciate that there was no prayer for condensation of delay. ( 8 ) PETITIONER met his lawyer on 20. 10. 2003 and was advised to obtain certified copy. He handed over the same to his ld. Counsel on 13. 11. 03. The instant petition was thereafter drafted and settled. It was filed on 27. 11. 03. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to ld. Counsel for the petitioner the impugned order suffers from misappreciation of law and facts that the Court acted illegally and with material irregularity. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that ld. Family court to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. He further submitted that the petition for setting aside of the ex parte decree was filed long after expiry of the period of 30 days from the date of the order and it was not supported by any application for condonation of delay. Reference was made to the decision in the case of Rajib Lochan Pandey vs. Madan Gopal Sharma and Ors. , reported in AIR 1989 All. Reference was made to the decision in the case of Rajib Lochan Pandey vs. Madan Gopal Sharma and Ors. , reported in AIR 1989 All. 45 , and State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Nripendranath banerjee and Ors. , reported in AIR 1992 Cal 179 . It was argued that the limitation is 30 days from the date of knowledge. In the present case the order was passed on 28. 6. 02, date of knowledge is claimed was 18. 12. 02 and the petition was filed on 13. 01. 03. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the O. P. that the Court is required to take a lenient view and it is not always necessary to back up an application for setting aside ex parte decree with a petition for condonation of delay when such application is filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree. Attention of the Court was drawn to the decision in the case of Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, enforcement Directorate vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. , reported in 2000 (2)CLJ 266 , in support of the contention that even in absence of a separate petition delay for a 228 days was condoned and more so, as a Government department was involved in it. ( 10 ) IN the case of Ranubala Biswas and Anr. vs. Mangalabala Sardar, reported in 2000 (2) CLJ 440, Single Bench of this Court while dealing with section 5 of limitation Act and Article 123 of the Limitation Act held that there could be no requirement for condonation of delay if application is filed within time from the date of knowledge. ( 11 ) THOUGH reference was made to the decision in the case of V. K. Industries and Ors. vs. M. P. Electricity Board, Rampur, Jabalpur, reported in 2000 (2)Supreme 142, but the facts and circumstances of the present case do not attract the said decision. ( 12 ) IN the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurty, reported in 1998 (7) Supreme 209 it was held by the Apex Court that -"it is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. "it was further argued that in exercising discretion under section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963, the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach [ref: vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs. Santaram Baburao Patil and Ors. , 2001 (5) Supreme 266 ]. ( 13 ) IT is significant to mention that both sides seems to have brought one naresh Chandra Adhikary into the picture. In fact, the materials on record go a long way to suggest that there was no effective service of summons to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the Court. ( 14 ) IN such circumstances, ld. Family Court quite rightly restored the original application and by passing the impugned order dated 13. 6. 2003 set aside the ex parte decree on 11. 06. 2002. Though, maintainability of the present application was also challenged by referring to the decision in the case of Essen Deinki vs. Rajb Kumar, reported in 2002 (8) SCC 400 , I am of the opinion that the petitioner having challenged the impugned order on the ground that it was based on perverse findings and not in accordance with the provisions of law, I think, the present application in spite of his limited scope and restricted nature, is maintainable. After all, the petitioner in such application alleged that the impugned order was passed without appreciating the matter in its proper perspective. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, while holding that the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable, I am inclined to dismiss the same as in my view the grievances ventilated do not seem to have any sound rational basis. So the case fails. The application being C. O. No. 2600 of 2003 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India stands accordingly dismissed on contest. ( 16 ) THERE is no order as to costs. ( 17 ) LIBERTY is given to both parties to take the gist of the order. Let xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on payment of requisite fees. Application dismissed on contest.