JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. This is an appeal by wife which has been filed belatedly, seeking condonation of delay of 1414 days, which has chanced in filing the appeal whereby she has questioned the impugned order dated 19.08.2013, passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Dehradun, by virtue of which the Miscellaneous Case Number 51 of 2012 “Smt. Kirti Rajini Mittal vs Sudarshan Mittal”, filed under Order 9 Rule 13 has been rejected. 2. The appellant-wife on 28.11.2011 had instituted a suit invoking Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was registered as Suit Number 800 of 2011 – Smt. Kirti Rajni Mittal Vs. Sudarshan Mittal, wherein he has sought a relief for dissolution of marriage said to have been solemnized with the defendant-appellant on 18.01.2004. 3. Brief facts as agitated by the plaintiff-appellant in the suit was that the plaintiff was a divorcee and the husband too was widower. The respondent-husband from the earlier wife had 3 children namely Ankur Mittal, Manish Mittal and Vishwas Mittal and from the second marriage solemnized with the plaintiff-appellant, no issues were born. She contended that despite of her best effort to keep the children of the respondent, from the first wife, to be happy and contented, yet he started acting atrociously against her and started harassing her and used to treat the plaintiff-appellant with humiliation. 4. She contended that despite of all her best efforts she was never accepted as to be a wife and she was never granted her status which she claims to be deserving as being the wife of the defendant-respondent. She submitted that the respondent/husband under the persuasion made by the children from the first wife, he started misbehaving and even at times she was physically assaulted and was kept in a situation where there was always a dearth of her bare necessities and even money to take care of herself. 5. She submitted that initially she endured all the atrocities under the pretext that gradually with the passage of time all the misunderstanding which the respondent is having would vanish but her case was that despite of all patience which she could exercise when the gravity of cruelty kept on increasing, she was forced to initiate the proceedings for dissolution of marriage. 6. 6. She further submitted that whenever she suffered any ailment and requested the husband to take her to the Doctor for medical treatment he used to deprive her even of medical attendance. She submitted that the husband has adopted an attitude where she was even publicly humiliated by using of filthy languages by the husband. Lastly she contended that on 28.10.2009, in the night she was beaten by husband and she was thrown out of the home and thus there has arisen a cause of action for her to institute the suit for dissolution of marriage. 7. The suit thus filed by the plaintiff-appellant was decreed in an ex-party manner by the judgment dated 03.03.2012, with a finding made therein that the respondent despite of notices being served upon him had not put in appearance nor had filed any written statement. Thus the learned family Court proceeded to decide the appeal in an ex-party manner. Consequently, the learned family Court while rendering the judgment dated 03.03.2012 while considering the affidavit paper number 10-A filed by the appellant-wife supporting her pleadings raised in the plaint came to the conclusion that since the pleadings of atrocities and cruelty and the attitude of the respondent of not giving her due and proper treatment and the act of humiliation would amount to be a cruelty and would fall within the ambit of Section 13(1)(i-a) had dissolve the marriage on the ground of cruelty. 8. The plaintiff-appellant contends that the decree as passed on 03.03.2012 though apparently it seems to have been passed in the proceedings initiated by her, but the decree has been obtained by the respondent by playing fraud and thus the ex parte decree which has been granted is not as per law, hence she filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 praying to set aside the ex-parte decree and the case may be heard afresh. 9. She contended in her application filed under Order 9 Rule 13, that though she admits the facts that the marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and the respondent on 18.01.2004, coupled with the fact she admits their prior marital status and the configuration of the family members. 9. She contended in her application filed under Order 9 Rule 13, that though she admits the facts that the marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff and the respondent on 18.01.2004, coupled with the fact she admits their prior marital status and the configuration of the family members. She submitted that at the time of marriage the elder son (Ankur) of the respondent-husband who was already married was having a dispute with his wife and there was a proceeding going on under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 10. Since the defendant/respondent had severed his relationship with his son Ankur and since the dispute between his son Ankur and his wife is still pending. Hence, she submitted that on account of the fact that the family environment was being tarnished because of the dispute between his son and his wife, coupled with the fact that until and unless the said dispute is settled, she submitted that though she was pregnant but on the request of the respondent-husband she got herself aborted. 11. She submitted further that after the first abortion she yet again became pregnant for 2nd time and when the respondent wanted her to abort and she declined, she was misbehaved by the husband and she was thrown out from the matrimonial home. She further alleged that when she was pregnant for the second time and was thrown out from her matrimonial house later on when she was being questioned by the traffic police for the reason of her hue and cry she submitted that her husband has thrown her out in her pregnant state, in that situation she was called back by the husband who after administering intoxicating medicines to her yet again got her aborted. 12. She submitted that all these activities of the husband was done deliberately and would amount to be a cruelty. 13. In her application for restoration in para 10 of Order 9 Rule 13 she submitted that the respondent was able to persuade her to accompany her to the Court in October 2011 as certain documentations were required, to settled down the proceedings under Section 498-A which was pending between the son of the respondent-husband, Ankur and his wife. 14. 13. In her application for restoration in para 10 of Order 9 Rule 13 she submitted that the respondent was able to persuade her to accompany her to the Court in October 2011 as certain documentations were required, to settled down the proceedings under Section 498-A which was pending between the son of the respondent-husband, Ankur and his wife. 14. She submitted that under the pretext of said pendency of 498-A proceedings, she was persuaded by the husband to sign certain blank papers, after being allured that some property would be transferred in her name. She admitted the fact that for putting the signatures she was taken to the District Courts where she has put her signatures. In her application under Order 9 Rule 13 she submitted that in first week of March she could get the knowledge of the judgment dated 03.03.2012 for the first time and persuaded her to live in tenanted accommodation at Mata Mandir Road w.e.f. 11.05.2012, when the husband started throwing her articles/belongings from his home. She could know that the conduct of the respondent-husband of throwing her out from her matrimonial home was due to the ex parte decree of divorce. She submitted that he used to lock her in the tenanted accommodation whenever he went out outside. She submitted that when the whereabouts of her was not known to her mother, it created a doubt and then the mother of the appellant-wife lodged a missing report on 04.06.2012. 15. She in her application submitted that the all documentations which were done on the persuasion of the respondent in the District Courts by placing signatures on the blank papers were under the pretext that some deed of conveyance is being executed in her favour. She further submitted that on 28.06.2012 in the afternoon husband-respondent and his servant she was locked in the room and was beaten and forced to sign blank paper under the pretext to withdraw the proceeding pending in the police station. The application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 was opposed by the responded and he denied the allegations levelled particularly in para 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Order 9 Rule 13. 16. The application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 was opposed by the responded and he denied the allegations levelled particularly in para 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Order 9 Rule 13. 16. In an additional objection the respondent submitted that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 is not maintainable at the behest of the decree holder because she who was applicant of Order 9 Rule 13 applicant cannot raise plea under the principles of audi alteram partem. This principle will not be available to the appellant as she can not contend that the judgment dated 03.03.2012 was an ex parte, more particularly, when the same has been rendered in the proceedings initiated at her behest. 17. He submitted that the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 was barred by limitation as the same could have been filed within one month from the date of knowledge of the ex parte judgment. The learned family Court by the impugned judgment dated 19.08.2013, rejecting the Miscellaneous Case Number 51 of 2012 and thereby affirmed the ex parte decree dated 03.03.2012. 18. The present Appeal is being filed along with the Section 5 Application. In her Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act she contended that after passing of the order dated 19.08.2013, rejecting her application under Order 9 Rule 13 she approached the counsel (name of the counsel not disclosed) and she has filed an Appeal from Order being No. 488 of 2013 invoking the Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure. She submitted that the said Appeal from Order was dismissed by this Court on 28.03.2014, with a liberty to file an Appeal under Section 19 of the family Courts Act. 19. The appellant-wife has two causes of actions. Initially against the judgment dated 03.03.2012 she had a remedy of filing of a regular Appeal under Section 19 of the Act. On rejection of Order 9 Rule 13 she had a remedy to file an Appeal from Order which she preferred an A.O. No. 488 of 2013. The said appeal which according to Section 5 Application was filed by invoking Section 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure was withdrawn to file an Appeal under Section 19 of the family Courts Act. 20. The said appeal which according to Section 5 Application was filed by invoking Section 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure was withdrawn to file an Appeal under Section 19 of the family Courts Act. 20. In the present appeal, the challenge given is to both the orders; first the judgment dated 03.03.2012 decreeing her suit for dissolution of marriage and the Order dated 19.08.2013 rejecting Order 9 Rule 13 filed by her to recall decree dated 03.03.2012. The reason which has been assigned in the Application under Order 9 Rule 13 was that she was not conscious of the proceedings of the regular suit for dissolution of marriage though filed at her behest cannot be accepted for the reason that if the pleadings of cruelty in the plaint are read with the reasons of cruelty as given in the application under Order 9 Rule 13, it almost fortifies the fact that the appellant was somehow aggrieved by the atrocious act of the husband and that is why she had initiated the proceedings for dissolution of marriage. Meaning thereby there was some dissatisfaction in the relationship of the plaintiff-appellant with the defendant-respondent and looking to the pleading and counter pleading, the allegations of cruelty as leveled by the plaintiff-appellant against the husband is not ruled out. Her plea that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 13 at her behest was fraudulently drawn on the pretext of getting certain signed papers from her cannot be accepted as she was conscious at the time when she alleges to have been taken to the Registry, Sub Registrar when she was conscious that she has signed the papers, yet never retaliated, or shown any disagreement from signing the papers. 21. If all these actions were done voluntarily without raising any allegations or questioning the propriety of the signatures made by her in the plaint, she admits that the proceedings to have been drawn by her. 22. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that though the reason assigned in the delay condonation application for condoning the delay of 1414 days is justified as she has bona fide by pursued an Appeal from Order against the judgment dated 19.08.2013 and thus delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 22. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that though the reason assigned in the delay condonation application for condoning the delay of 1414 days is justified as she has bona fide by pursued an Appeal from Order against the judgment dated 19.08.2013 and thus delay in filing the appeal is condoned. However, the reason which has been assigned by her in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 alleging thereof that the suit itself was initiated fraudulently without her knowledge is not acceptable by this Court looking to the backdrop and the manner in which the suit has proceeded, more particularly, when she admits to have placed the signatures on the papers. Thus, the appeal fails and the impugned Orders dated 19.08.2013 and 03.03.2012 are upheld. Consequently, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as dissolved by the Court below is affirmed. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.