Judgment : Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri I. Agha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the Courts below dated 19.07.2011 and 09.07.2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex-parte decree in favour of the respondent came to be rejected. 3. Shri Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner and the respondent are residing in the same apartment at the time of filing of the divorce suit by the respondent and immediately after receiving the summons from the Court in the divorce suit filed by the respondent, the respondent had given an assurance to the petitioner that she would withdraw the divorce suit as according to him, there was no subsisting differences between them. The learned counsel further pointed out that during the said period when the summons were received by the petitioner from the Court, the examination process was going on and as such, the petitioner who owns a van which is used to transport the students to different schools failed to remain present when the matter was fixed before the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner was under an impression that the respondent had honoured the commitment given to the petitioner that she would withdraw the said suit and as such did not take steps to appear before the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel further pointed out that on 02.08.2010 the petitioner learnt from the respondent that she obtained a divorce from the Court on 28.07.2010 as she wanted to live separately. The learned counsel further pointed out that immediately thereafter the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the said judgment disposing of the divorce proceedings dated 28.07.2010 and filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree on 18.08.2010. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has essentially dismissed the application on the ground that there was no evidence adduced by the petitioner to substantiate his contention that the respondent had given such assurance. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has essentially dismissed the application on the ground that there was no evidence adduced by the petitioner to substantiate his contention that the respondent had given such assurance. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Lower Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that there was no corroboration evidence adduced by the petitioner to substantiate his said contention. 4. On the other hand, Shri I. Agha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned orders. The learned counsel has pointed out that the respondent has acted in gross negligence in not attending the divorce proceedings and as such, no discretion can be exercised by this Court in the present Writ Petition. The learned counsel further pointed out that it is very extraneous that the petitioner is trying to contend that he was given an assurance by the respondent who was the adversal in the divorce suit that she would withdraw the divorce suit. The learned counsel further pointed out that all these contentions are cooked up by the petitioner to make an non existent case in his favour. The learned counsel further pointed out that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Lower Appellate Court an attempt was made for reconciliation which has failed. The learned counsel further pointed out that in view of bitter relation between the petitioner and the respondent, there is no scope for reconciliation and as such, the question of maintaining the marriage will not serve any purpose. The learned counsel further pointed out that in such circumstances and taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels and I have also gone through the records. The decree which is sought to be set aside was passed ex-parte against the petitioner. The decree was for divorce in the Matrimonial Petition. In such circumstances, the effect of such decree would not only affect the right of the petitioner but also the children of the said marriage. As such, it would be appropriate to consider in the background of the said fact whether the petitioner has justified his absence before the Trial Court. The decree was for divorce in the Matrimonial Petition. In such circumstances, the effect of such decree would not only affect the right of the petitioner but also the children of the said marriage. As such, it would be appropriate to consider in the background of the said fact whether the petitioner has justified his absence before the Trial Court. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that the respondent had given an assurance that she would withdraw the divorce suit. In normal circumstances, the contention of Shri Agha to the effect that such assurance by the adverse party cannot be prima facie believed. But in the peculiar facts of the case, it is to be noted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent were living in the same apartment. It is also not in dispute that when the divorce suit was filed the petitioner and the respondent were living in the same apartment along with their children. In such circumstances, naturally the effect is that when the summons are received, the action would naturally be questioned by the respondent. In the present case, though the petitioner has not produced any evidence to corroborate the said contention, such contention cannot be discarded in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the petitioner and the respondent were residing in the same apartment along with their children. 6. The Courts below as such were not justified to pass the impugned orders refusing the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte decree granting divorce in favour of the respondent. It is also to be noted that the application for setting aside ex-parte decree was filed within the time prescribed. The petitioner has immediately after he learnt about the said ex-parte decree taken necessary steps to initiate appropriate proceedings to set aside the ex-parte decree. This conduct of the petitioner further discloses that the petitioner had interest to oppose the relief sought by the respondent in the divorce suit. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated herein above, I find that the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Lower Appellate Court deserve to be quashed and set aside. 7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated herein above, I find that the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Lower Appellate Court deserve to be quashed and set aside. 7. The contention of Shri Agha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent to the effect that there is no scope for reconciliation in the said marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and as such no useful purpose would be served in case decree of divorce is set aside is otherwise a matter to be considered on its own merits. 8. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that in such eventuality the parties can always explore the possibility of trying to sort out the dispute and even seek divorce by consent before the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. 9. Needless to say, the respondent is to be compensated by costs on account of lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner in not appearing before the learned Trial Court. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the dispute between the parties, I find that such costs payable by the petitioner to the respondent are to be quantified at Rs.20,000/-. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji dated 19.07.2011 and the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court dated 09.07.2012 are quashed and set aside subject to petitioner paying costs of Rs.20,000/-to the respondent as condition precedent. (ii) The Matrimonial Petition No. 8/2010 is restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji. (iii) The learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji, is directed to dispose of the petition after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement in accordance with law. (iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (v) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji, on 09.04.2013 at 10.00 a.m. (vi) The petition stands disposed of accordingly.