JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral):- Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the court below whereby application moved by respondent-wife for setting-aside ex-parte decree of divorce has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. According to him, respondent-wife was duly served during the proceedings instituted by petitioner-husband. As she failed to appear, ex-parte decree was passed against her. The court below has gravely erred in setting aside the decree. Order being unsustainable deserves to be set-aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It appears that petitioner-husband filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Respondent was proceeded exparte therein. Decree of divorce was ultimately passed on 18.11.2010. Instant application was moved by respondent on 04.08.2011 for setting-aside ex-parte decree. Plea was resisted by petitioner-husband. The court below framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. On the basis of material on record it found that respondent had not been duly served. She and her father appeared as AW1 and AW2 and deposed that no notice was delivered to them by the postman and they never refused to accept the notice. Petitioner failed to examine the postman in support of his contention that respondent was duly served. I find no infirmity with the order passed by the court below. No case for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------