ORDER : 1. The petitioner-husband has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the orders dated 5th January 2021 in I.A.No.300 of 2020 in HMOP.No.55 of 2019 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 2. Brief facts :- The revision petitioner is the petitioner in HMOP.No.55 of 2019, filed an application under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage dated 15.04.2006 with the respondent-wife on certain allegations. Notice was served in that O.P., but, inspite of receipt of notice, respondent-wife remained absent. Consequently, she was set ex parte and on the next date of hearing, evidence of petitioner-husband was recorded as PW-1, Exs.A-1 to A-3 documents were marked and on the same day, petition was allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was dissolved. Respondent-wife has come to know about the same only when she has sent information to the petitioner about the death of her father on 26.07.2020. On receiving such information, it appears the petitioner-husband has stated that he is in no way concerned with the respondent as the marriage was dissolved, judgment was delivered on 27.09.2019 itself. Then the respondent herein has consulted her counsel and filed an application vide I.A.No.300 of 2020 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 270 days along with interlocutory application vide I.A.No.363 of 2020 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 27.09.2019 in HMOP.No.55 of 2019. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, while dealing with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.300 of 2020 in the said HMOP, condoned the delay of 270 days in filling the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. In para 6 of the order impugned, it is observed that the petitioner-wife has specifically stated that the respondent-husband has promised that he will withdraw the divorce petition on the next date of hearing and requested her to stay with her parents for few days as her father was ill. Believing the words of the husband, the wife stayed back with her parents. In the meanwhile, her father, while undergoing treatment, died on 26.07.2020. 3. Believing the words of the husband, the wife stayed back with her parents. In the meanwhile, her father, while undergoing treatment, died on 26.07.2020. 3. In support of the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the respondent-wife has filed her affidavit before the trial Court, wherein, it is averred at para 3 that originally, the said HMOP.No.55 of 2019 was posted to 04.09.2019 for her appearance and when she was absent, she was set ex parte. In fact, from 10.03.2019 onwards, when she was necked out from her matrimonial house, she has been living with her old-aged parents and immediately on receipt of notices in HMOP.No.55 of 2019 a panchayat was held, she along with her family members and well-wishers, went to the house of husband, questioned about filing of divorce case, matter was amicably settled in the presence of elders and the husband has agreed to take back her into his conjugal society with a promise that he will withdraw the divorce O.P. filed by him and also requested her to stay with her parents for some time as her father fell seriously ill. The wife, who is the petitioner in I.A.No.300 of 2020 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has clearly explained in her affidavit that believing the words of her husband, she kept silent and stayed with her parents and when her father died, on 26.07.2020, she sent a message to her husband. Then the true facts have come to light to the effect that instead of withdrawing the divorce O.P.No.55 of 2019, he has pursued it, obtained an ex parte decree behind and her back. Accordingly, she consulted her counsel immediately and filed a petition on 3rd August 2020. Thus, the delay of 270 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is not at all intentional, but as she bonafidely believed the version of her husband, stayed with her parents, attending her father who was sick. 4. This application was resisted before the trial Court by the husband, who filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that as per Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorced person is entitled to marry after expiry of appeal time. 4. This application was resisted before the trial Court by the husband, who filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that as per Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorced person is entitled to marry after expiry of appeal time. Since he obtained decree of divorce on 27.09.2019 and the appeal time of 90 days expires on 27.12.2019, he has re-married another lady on 29.02.2020, the marriage was consummated and they were blessed with a female child on 23.09.2020. Thus, no cause survives for filing the application. Death of the father of the petitioner on 26.07.2020 cannot be a ground to condone the delay of 270 days as she was set ex parte on 04.09.2019 and that the delay from 04.09.2019 to 25.07.2020 is not properly explained. Further, it is alleged in the counter that the wife has also filed a Criminal Case for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of IPC on 22.07.2019 vide Crime No.150 of 2019 and that he was arrested by the Police, hence, she is aware of all the proceedings and not entitled for condoning the delay. 5. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 05.01.2021 in I.A.No.300 of 2020 in HMOP.No.55 of 2019 on the ground that the petitioner had obtained ex parte decree of divorce on 27.09.2019; that the respondent did not appear before the Court and failed to contest the matter inspite of receipt of notice and summons; she has suppressed the fact that an FIR is issued against the petitioner in the month of March 2019, as she had rampaged the house of the brother of the petitioner. In fact, immediately after the ex parte order, the petitioner has filed a case in Crime No.150 of 2019 before the Women Police Station, Charminar for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of IPC. 6. In fact, immediately after the ex parte order, the petitioner has filed a case in Crime No.150 of 2019 before the Women Police Station, Charminar for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of IPC. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner has strenuously contended that the Hindu Marriage Act is a special enactment and the provisions of Section 15 of the Act enable the petitioner to marry again after the appeal time is over and Section 28(4) provides for an appeal and the period of limitation for filing the appeal is 90 days from the date of decree or order and that Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act clearly envisages that with respect to the marriage and divorce, nothing in the Limitation Act shall apply to any suit or proceedings under any such law. Accordingly, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy has erred in condoning the delay of 270 days and the said order is liable to be set aside. 7. Whereas, the learned counsel for respondent contended that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC under the Hindu Marriage Act also and the matter is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in several decisions that the wife is entitled for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay and that this Court also, in the case of Miryala Kavitha v. Miryala Krishnaiah, 2004 (3) ALD 690 has condoned the delay of 122 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. 8. The learned counsel for respondent has also relied upon the following decisions; (1) Sm.Sipra Dey v. Ajit Kumar Dey, AIR 1988 Calcutta 28, (2) Lokeshwari v. Srinivasa Rao, 2000 (3) ALD 350 , (3) Arun Kautik Pawar v. Sau Laxmi Arun Pawar, 1985 (2) BomCR 619 and (4) Darshana Devi v. Bodh Raj & another, High Court of J&K in C.Ref.No.1 of 2004, dt.19.12.2013. 9. The revision petitioner-husband has filed HMOP.No.55 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce, wherein, the wife was set ex parte on 04.09.2019. Later, after examining the husband as PW-1 and marking the documents Exs.A-1 to A-3, an ex parte decree was passed on 27.09.2019. 9. The revision petitioner-husband has filed HMOP.No.55 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce, wherein, the wife was set ex parte on 04.09.2019. Later, after examining the husband as PW-1 and marking the documents Exs.A-1 to A-3, an ex parte decree was passed on 27.09.2019. When the wife has come to know about the ex parte decree after the death of her father, she immediately consulted her counsel and filed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 3rd of August 2020. Thus, there is a delay of 270 days. She has tried to explain that immediately on receipt of notice from the Court in divorce O.P., she along with her well-wishers and parents went to the house of the husband, a panchayat was held, wherein, the husband having satisfied, agreed to withdraw the OP and requested the wife to stay with her father, who was sick. It was only that when her father died while taking treatment and when she informed the husband on 26.07.2020, she has come to know about the ex parte divorce decree dated 27.09.2019. Till such time, she was unaware of that fact. 10. The only basis for granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband is the affidavit filed on his behalf as PW-1 and the contents of the documents in Exs.A-1 to A-3 which are marriage photos, wedding card and true copy of the Aadhar Card of the husband respectively. No other material is placed before the trial Court. In similar circumstances, at para 7 of the judgment in Miryala Kavitha’s case (supra 1), this Court has held thus; “It is rather unfortunate that such evidence weighed with the Presiding Officer, herself being a woman, and a decree was granted without any consideration or appreciation of the matter. Time and again, the Supreme Court held that even where the defendant in a suit remained ex parte, the Trial Court is not relieved of its obligation to record findings of various aspects that fall for consideration. Absence of the defendant by itself does not entitle a Trial Court to grant a decree as prayed for. Such a course of action would be contrary to the very adjudicatory process. That, however, is a different aspect touching on the merits of the decree.” 11. Absence of the defendant by itself does not entitle a Trial Court to grant a decree as prayed for. Such a course of action would be contrary to the very adjudicatory process. That, however, is a different aspect touching on the merits of the decree.” 11. The respondent herein has approached the trial Court with an application in I.A.No.300 of 2020 to condone the delay that had occurred. She has specifically pleaded that immediately after receipt of notice for the hearing dated 04.09.2019, she approached her husband along with her family members and well-wishers and in their presence, her husband had agreed to withdraw the HMOP filed by him and also agreed to take her back to his conjugal society, however, requested her to stay back with her father, who was sick and taking treatment. It is the case of the respondent-wife that she was taking care of her father, later he died on 26.07.2020. When it was informed to her husband, he denied any such relationship with her stating that he obtained a decree for divorce on 27.09.2019 itself. Then only she has come to know about the ex parte decree of divorce and approached her counsel, filed the application to condone the delay of 270 days and also another application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. 12. It was not as if the O.P. was pending on the file of trial Court for years together or the petitioner has approached the Court after inordinate delay. In fact, the Court below though not properly assigned any reasons, has rightly concluded that the wife is entitled for condoning the delay of 270 days. 13. While dealing with the applications filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parimal vs. Veena @ Bharti, (2011) 3 SCC 545 held thus: “Approach of the Court while dealing with such an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. would be liberal and elastic rather than narrow and pedantic. However, in case the matter does not fall within the four corners of Order IX Rule 13, the Court has no jurisdiction to set aside ex parte decree. However, in case the matter does not fall within the four corners of Order IX Rule 13, the Court has no jurisdiction to set aside ex parte decree. The manner in which the language of the second proviso to Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. has been couched by the legislature makes it obligatory on the appellate court not to interfere with an ex parte decree unless it meets the statutory requirement. It was not permissible for the High Court to take into consideration the conduct of the appellant subsequent to passing of the ex parte decree.” 14. It was a case in which the spouse who obtained the ex parte decree had remarried. The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to take into account the remarriage of the spouse as a relevant factor in deciding the merits of an application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce. Accordingly, while seeking guidance from the above, I am of the firm view that mere re-marriage of the petitioner husband who obtained ex parte decree of divorce will not render the application to set aside the ex parte decree filed by the wife-opposite spouse infructuous. Re-marriage of the spouse is not a relevant factor to be taken into account in deciding the merits of the application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce. The application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be considered on its own merits within the four corners of that provision. 15. The another argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is that in view of Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in view of savings Clause under Section 29(3), Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply and the learned trial Court has erred in applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the decision in Miryala Kavitha’s case (supra), has clearly held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, and an appeal is also maintainable if it is filed beyond the period of 30 days. At that time, 30 days was specified as limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act. At that time, 30 days was specified as limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh, (1988) 2 SCC 90 and in Lata Kamat v. Vilas, (1989) 2 SCC 613 held that the party appealing under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act is also entitled for exclusion of the time taken by it for obtaining the certified copies of the decree. In Lata Kamat’s case (supra 8), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the interpretation of suit or other proceedings under Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act and held that the impact of sub-section (3) is concerned, will be that the provisions of Limitation Act will be applied insofar as suit or other original proceedings under the Act are concerned, but sub-section (3) will not govern an appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S Sahara India And Ors vs M.C. Aggarwal Huf, 2007 (11) SCC 800 held that where no opportunity of hearing has been given and an ex parte order has been passed, the Court should not lose sight of the fact that prejudice will be caused to the other side and consequently restored the case. 16. In the case on hand, the trial Court has clearly recorded that the petitioner-wife had shown sufficient cause that considering the advice of her husband that he will withdraw the divorce O.P. filed by him and asked her to stay back with her father, who was sick, for some more time and she stayed with her father and only after the death of her father, when she had informed about it, she had come to know through the husband that he has obtained divorce then she filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Therefore, there cannot be any straight-jacket formula of universal application to condone the delay and “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is only a question of fact and the Court has to exercise its judicious discretion to meet the ends of justice. Though under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorced person is entitled to marry again after expiry of appeal time, that by itself does not make the application filed either under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, infructuous. Though under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a divorced person is entitled to marry again after expiry of appeal time, that by itself does not make the application filed either under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, infructuous. In the present case, the respondent-wife is able to explain the delay of 270 days stating believing the words of her husband she stayed back with her father who was bed-ridden that she was totally occupied in looking-after her father and only after his death, when she informed the fact to her husband, she came to know about the ex parte decree of divorce. Therefore, in such facts and circumstances of the case, while relying upon the principles laid down by this Court in Miryala Kavitha’s case (supra1) and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, I hold that the order impugned is sustainable and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 17. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.