ORDER : Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. Appellant-wife has preferred this First Appeal u/S.19 of Family Courts Act, assailing the order dated 24/07/2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Morena in Case No.20/2014 (HMA) rejecting the application filed by her under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree dated 16/03/2011 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Morena in Case No.03/2010 (HMA). 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the legally-wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rights and rituals in 1970 and they were having two sons and two daughters. Presently, the appellant is living separately from her husband/respondent. 3. It is the case of respondent that he had filed a divorce petition u/S. 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short '' HMA'' ] before Third Additional District Judge, Morena on 11/01/2010 and in absence of appellant/wife as well as her counsel, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed in favour of respondent/husband on 16/03/2011 and the marriage between the parties was dissolved. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant/wife filed a restoration application under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec.151 CPC for setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree dated 16/03/2011, on the ground that her advocate Shri Vishnu Kumar Maheshwari had assured her that she is not required to come to the Court on each date and he will call her as and when required. During pendency of the case, the wife of her Advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari, suffered from cancer due to which, her Advocate Shri Maheshwari had to remain out of Morena for the purpose of treatment of his wife. After the death of wife of her Advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari, when she came to her Advocate's Office, she came to know that an ex parte judgment and decree has been passed in favour of the respondent on 16/03/2011. In support of application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec.151 CPC before the Family Court, the appellant filed an affidavit of Ramprakash Sharma, Stamp Vendor under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. 4. In support of application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec.151 CPC before the Family Court, the appellant filed an affidavit of Ramprakash Sharma, Stamp Vendor under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. 4. Per contra, the respondent by filing reply to the application under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec. 151 CPC, stated that the brother of his wife/appellant, namely, Omprakash Pathak is doing advocacy with advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari, therefore, the brother of appellant had full knowledge about the case. The appellant is not vigilant in pursuing her case. Even after contacting her Advocate on 05/04/2011 about the status of her case, the appellant is making a false story that she did not know about ex parte judgment and decree passed on 16/03/2011. It is further stated that he had neither given any mental or physical harassment to his wife nor he had turned out his wife from his house. His wife is a quarrelsome lady and is living separately according to her own will and volition. On the date of passing of ex parte judgment and decree, his wife remained absent without any sufficient reason. The appellant had full knowledge and was aware of the case filed against her and she willfully did not put in her appearance leading to ex parte judgment and decree passed in his favour. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has committed a material irregularity in rejecting the restoration application filed by the appellant for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree and has not properly considered the oral evidence of the appellant, therefore, the party like appellant should not be made to suffer on the fault of her counsel. Thus, her application under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec. 151 CPC may be allowed and ex parte judgment and decreed dated 16/03/2011 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Morena, may be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent by supporting the impugned order, prays for dismissal of this appeal. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The question for determination of this appeal is as to whether the appellant has proved sufficient cause for her non-appearance on 31/1/2011 or not ? 9. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent by supporting the impugned order, prays for dismissal of this appeal. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The question for determination of this appeal is as to whether the appellant has proved sufficient cause for her non-appearance on 31/1/2011 or not ? 9. Before the Family Court, in support of her application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec. 151 CPC, the appellant/wife has narrated that a divorce petition bearing Case No.03/2010 filed by her husband/respondent was pending. Her Advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari assured her not to come to the Court on each date and he will call her as and when required. Subsequent thereto, she relied upon the assurance given by her Advocate. On 05/04/2011, when she had gone to the Office of her Advocate, Shri Vishnu Maheshwari, she came to know that the wife of her Advocate was suffering from cancer, and therefore, he had to remain out of Morena for her treatment, thus, her Advocate could not inform her about the status of her case and the same was decided due to non-appearance and an ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 16/03/2011. On the said date, she applied for certified copy of ex parte judgment and decree through an Advocate Shri Shyamsunder Sharma and obtained the copy of same on 07/04/2011. After receipt of certified copy of the same, she filed a restoration application under Order 9 Rule 3 r/w Sec.151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree on 11/04/2011. In para 7 of her cross-examination, the appellant/ wife denied that her brother Omprakash Pathak is doing advocacy with Shri Vishnu Maheshwari. She also denied that junior advocate Shri Jitendra Singh also used to sit with Shri Vishnu Maheshwari. It is further admitted that in Vaklatnama although the names of Omprakash Pathak and Jitendra Singh were mentioned, but it did not contain their signatures. It is further admitted that she came to know about the status of her case from her advocate's Office Shri Vishnu Maheshwari on 05/04/2011. In paragraph 9 of her cross-examination, the appellant admitted that she is living separately for the last 20 years from her husband/ respondent Santoshi Lal Sharma. It is further admitted that she came to know about the status of her case from her advocate's Office Shri Vishnu Maheshwari on 05/04/2011. In paragraph 9 of her cross-examination, the appellant admitted that she is living separately for the last 20 years from her husband/ respondent Santoshi Lal Sharma. So far as the cause for non-appearance of her Advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari on the date of hearing i.e. 31/01/2011 on the ground that his wife was suffering from cancer is concerned, the same remains unchallenged. 10. Further, in support of her evidence, the appellant has filed an affidavit of Ramprakash Sharma, Stamp Vendor under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, who narrated that the appellant's husband filed a divorce petition before Third Additional District Judge, Morena which was pending and in his presence, the appellant had engaged Shri Vishnu Maheshwari as her Advocate for prosecuting her case and Shri Vishnu Maheshwari assured her not to come to the Court on each date and he will call her as and when required. During pendency of the case, the wife of Shri Vishnu Maheshwari died because of cancer during treatment outside Morena, therefore, he could not inform the appellant/wife regarding the status of her case. When she came to the Court on 05/04/2011, she came to know that an ex parte judgment and decree has been passed against her. Thereafter, she applied for certified copy of the same through an Advocate Shyamsunder Sharma and the same was obtained on 07/04/2011. Afterwards, he filed a restoration application on 11/04/2011. In para 7 of cross-examination, it is admitted by Stamp Vendor Ramprakash Sharma that wife of Shri Vishnu Maheshwari was suffering from cancer since 2010-2011 due to which, he could not able to attend the Court. He admitted that the brother of appellant Omprakash Pathak is an advocate and working as associate of Shri Jitendra Singh Gurjar and Shri Vishnu Maheshwari. He denied that on each date of hearing, the appellant used to come to the Office of her Advocate and sit in the Chamber of her Advocate Shri Vishu Maheshwari. This witness denied that he is giving any false evidence at the behest of appellant. So far as the other evidence is concerned, the same remains unchallenged. 11. He denied that on each date of hearing, the appellant used to come to the Office of her Advocate and sit in the Chamber of her Advocate Shri Vishu Maheshwari. This witness denied that he is giving any false evidence at the behest of appellant. So far as the other evidence is concerned, the same remains unchallenged. 11. In para 11 of his cross-examination, the respondent admitted that appellant is his legally-wedded wife and from their wedlock, four children were born and remained with him till 1993. Thereafter, he used to live at Shivpuri. He is retired from service on 31/01/2005. He admitted that after his retirement, he used to live at Morena and at that time, his wife was not living with him. He did not oust his wife from his house. She left the house on the influence of her brother Omprakash Pathak. The respondent admitted that Omprakash Pathak is his brother-in-law, but denied that he has any inimical terms with him. He admitted that Vishnu Maheshwari was the lawyer of appellant, but he has no knowledge that the wife of Vishnu Maheshwari was suffering from cancer. He has no knowledge that the wife of Vishnu Maheshwari was undergoing treatment of cancer at Pune/Mumbai. He did not know the names of associates of Advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari. 12. Keeping in view the evidence adduced by the appellant/wife, her witness Ramprakash Sharma, Stamp Vendor as well as the cross-examination of the respondent/ husband, it is clear that appellant had engaged Shri Vishnu Maheshwari as her lawyer for prosecuting her case in the divorce petition filed by her husband/respondent, who had assured her not to come to the Court on each date of hearing and he will call her as and when required. It is true that the appellant did not produce Advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari but in general, the Lawyers in family matters/disputes do not call their parties on each date and they are called when it is required for recording of their evidence before the Court. So far as the evidence of the appellant that the wife of her Advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari died because of suffering from cancer for whose treatment, her advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari had gone out of Morena is concerned, the same remains unchallenged. So far as the evidence of the appellant that the wife of her Advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari died because of suffering from cancer for whose treatment, her advocate Shri Vishnu Maheshwari had gone out of Morena is concerned, the same remains unchallenged. The ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 16/03/2011 and after obtaining certified copy of same on 07/04/2011, the appellant on 11/04/2011 had filed a restoration application under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec. 151 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree i.e. within a period of one month. In the interest of justice, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the rival parties, the learned Family Court should have decided the matter. In the present matter, the appellant is 57 years old lady and could not be made to suffer on the fault of her counsel. She has given sufficient cause/reason for non-appearance of her/her counsel before the Court concerned whereby an ex parte judgment and decree has been passed against her. 13. Looking to the evidence available on record coupled with the fact that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should have been given to the appellant/wife to defend her case before the Court below, it appears that the learned Family Court has committed an error in rejecting the restoration application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec.151 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree passed by Court below. 14. In view of above, the order dated 24/07/2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Morena in Case No.20/2014 (HMA) rejecting the application filed by appellant/wife under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec. 151 CPC seeking setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree dated 16/03/2011 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Morena in Case No.03/2010 (HMA) is set aside and the application filed by appellant/ wife under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Sec. 151 CPC for setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree is allowed. In view of aforesaid, the trial Court (Third Additional District Judge, Morena) is directed to decide the divorce petition filed by respondent/husband after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the rival parties, as per law. 15. In the result, present appeal stands Allowed.