ARUN KUMAR MITRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 26/08/2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Hooghly in Mat. Suit No. 247 of 2004. The petitioner being the husband filed the matrimonial Suit against the wife on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion. The order impugned was passed ex parte i. e. none represented the wife. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent/ wife filed a petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for maintenance. There also she did not appear. The learned Counsel handed over a certified copy of the order sheet in support of his contention. Insofar as this appeal is concerned since no one was appearing on behalf of the respondent/wife, the Division Bench of this hon'ble Court presided over by Hon'ble Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya by an order dated 4. 10. 2005 directed the department to send the notice to the respondent through registered post and also directed the department to submit a report in this regard and directed the petitioner to put in the cost of registration. Thereafter the department submitted a report that the notice was served on the respondent but neither the A/d Card came by nor the envelope returned being answer. More than one month has passed. Today also no one appeared on behalf of the respondent/wife and this Court had to take up the matter exparte. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage was initially completed under the Special Marriage Act. Thereafter, however, a social marriage was solemnized. The petitioner filed a suit for divorce under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act. The learned Counsel submits that the learned court below wrongly rejected his petition in a technical plea. ( 4 ) NOW, let us examine whether it is technical plea or not. ( 5 ) THE learned Court below found that a Matrimonial Suit No. 129 of 2002 was decreed exparte and the husband/petitioner got a decree for restitution of family life under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent and the decree was passed on 19/02/2004. But this suit has been filed on 25/05/2004 i. e. after 3 months 5/6 days passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights which is a pre-matured suit. But this suit has been filed on 25/05/2004 i. e. after 3 months 5/6 days passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights which is a pre-matured suit. The learned Judge quoted the relevant portion of Section 27 and observed that the suit is pre-matured and as such the learned Judge did not allow the petition under Section 27 of the Special Marriage act. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel submits that the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was obtained under Hindu Marriage Act but the marriage was initially under Special Marriage Act and as such the plea of one year is a mere technicality. ( 7 ) LET us therefore, look into the relevant provisions of Special Marriage act. Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act runs as follows : -"either party to a marriage whether solemnised before or after the commencement of the Special Marriage (Amendment) Act, 1970 may present a petition for divorce to the District Court on the ground - (ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties. " ( 8 ) BUT in the instant case the appellant/petitioner himself obtained the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also admits that subsequently, marriage was solemnised under Hindu Marriage Act and in that view of the matter the provisions of Section 27 (2) i. e. the suit for divorce is to be filed after one year and the decree of restitution is not a technicality and this is the statutory provision. ( 10 ) IN our opinion, the learned Court below rightly observed that the suit is pre-mature. ( 11 ) WE. therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and the appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.