JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed by the petitioner-non-applicant-husband (hereinafter 'the husband') against the order dated 1-12-2018 in Misc. Case No.12/2018 (CIS No.9/2018) passed by Additional District Judge Laxmangarh, District Sikar allowing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and set aside the ex-parte divorce decree dated 14-2-2017 in Case No.278/2016, in favour of the respondent-applicant- wife (hereinafter 'the wife') in a case where ex-parte decree of divorce was granted in favour of husband and against the wife. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order dated 1-12-2018 passed by the trial court. 3. Facts of the case are that the husband filed a divorce petition on 24-9- 2016 for dissolution of marriage with the applicant wife performed on 11- 3-2011 claiming that from their wedlock a son Ujjwal chaudhary was born and due to disputes between husband and wife, on 3-4-2013 the wife left matrimonial home and did not return thereafter. Therefore, he filed divorce petition inter alia alleging therein about several misbehaviour of the wife. The court on 2-1-2017 ordered for ex-parte proceedings against the wife on the ground that on 24-7-2016 notices were sent to wife through registered AD, and on filing Talvana on 19-12-2016, she was ordered to be present in court, and when she did not remain present in court, on 2-1- 2017 exparte proceedings were ordered. Ultimately the divorce decree was passed on 14-2-2017. 4. On coming to know about the divorce decree, the wife filed an application for setting aside ex-parte decree and submitted that as claimed 19-12-2016, no such date was mentioned in the notice, sent through registered AD. Their marriage was registered at Bharatpur, but no notice through registry was reached at Bharatpur. The husband collusively with post office of Laxmangarh shown to have sent notice at Bharatpur, while the wife was residing at Mathura with her brother. From 22-11-2016 to 30- 11-2016 her parents were also not at Bharatpur. The husband has also filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, of which notices were served on wife at Chaitanya Lok Colony, Mathura, to which she filed reply on 27-8-2014. From 22-11-2016 to 30- 11-2016 her parents were also not at Bharatpur. The husband has also filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, of which notices were served on wife at Chaitanya Lok Colony, Mathura, to which she filed reply on 27-8-2014. There were several other proceedings between husband and wife, and in all such proceedings the address of the wife was of Mathura, while malafidely the husband sent notice of divorce petition at Bharatpur and got ex-parte order dated 2-1-2017 in his favour. In course of several proceedings between husband and wife when a Panchayat meeting was held on 3-1-2018 at Pathaina, Bharatpur for compromise between husband and wife, then the wife came to know about ex-parte order dated 2-1-2017 and divorce decree dated 14-2-2017. Then she filed application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 5. The husband filed reply to application and opposing the application on many grounds first time disclosed about his second marriage on 17-6- 2017, just after four months of the divorce decree dated 14-2-2017. 6. The trial court considering the report of General Post Office of Bharatpur, which was obtained by the wife under Right to Information Act, that no notice in name of wife-Kusum Singh was received by the Post Office to be served Kusum Singh at Bharatpur and in view of the fact that husband failed to prove residence of wife at Bharatpur and that in all other proceedings wife's residence was proved of Mathura, the trial court vide order dated 1-12-2018 set aside the ex-parte order dated 2-1-2017 as also the decree of divorce dated 14-2-2017. Hence, this petition has been filed by the husband impugning the order dated 1-12-2018. 7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Counsel for husband has vehemently opposed the impugned order and submitted that the trial court while setting aside ex-parte decree has not considered the fact that husband has already entered into second marriage with Lajja Devi. Reliance has been placed on Karuna Kansal Vs. Hemant Kansal [ (2019)6 SCC 581 ], wherein first wife's belated application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed on ground of limitation and in view of the fact that husband had entered into second marriage upon expiring of period limitation for appeal. 9. Reliance has been placed on Karuna Kansal Vs. Hemant Kansal [ (2019)6 SCC 581 ], wherein first wife's belated application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed on ground of limitation and in view of the fact that husband had entered into second marriage upon expiring of period limitation for appeal. 9. Counsel for wife has supported the impugned order of trial court and submitted that husband had collusively and mischievously obtained ex- parte decree in his favour. Counsel submitted that when in all other proceedings the address of the wife was shown to be at Mathura, the husband has wrongly and miscellaneously mentioned the address of wife at Bharatpur in divorce petition and as such exparte order was passed in his favour, while he never tried to serve notice on wife. Not only this within just four months of divorce decree he entered into second marriage without disclosing this fact. The wife could get information about the ex-parte divorce decree during a panchayat meeting held for compromise between husband and wife. Counsel placed reliance on Naresh Chandra Agarwal Vs. Bank of Baroda [2001)3 SCC 163] wherein Legal Representative of deceased was admittedly working in another district at the relevant time, but notice regarding impleadment of LRs address to his permanent residential address was returned with endorsement 'refused', held on fact, the outcome was not a mere irregularity in service of summons but rather a case of non-service of notice and application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was allowed. Reliance has also been placed on Sushil Kumar Sabharwal Vs. Gurpreet Singh [ (2002)5 SCC 377 ] wherein the endorsement of containing the remark 'no witness available on the spot' also prima facie not found believable when summon was sought to be served on defendant at his shop situated in a locality where there were other shops and houses, and in view of non- service of summons in accordance with the law ex-parte decree was held liable to be set aside. 10. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perusing the material available on record, the wife came to know about the ex-parte divorce decree on 3-1-2018 and she filed the instant application on 22-1-2018 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 10. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perusing the material available on record, the wife came to know about the ex-parte divorce decree on 3-1-2018 and she filed the instant application on 22-1-2018 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This court is of the view that learned trial court has not committed any illegality in allowing wife's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, when she has bonafidely and validly proved that no notice was served upon her at Mathura, where she was residing along with her brother. Further at Bharatpur also notices were sent when her parents at house during the period of 22-11-2016 and 30-11-2016. Further more, as per report of General Post Office of Bharatpur, which was obtained by the wife under Right to Information Act, that no notice in name of wife-Kusum Singh was received by the Post Office to be served Kusum Singh at Bharatpur. As such the husband miserably failed to prove proper service of notice on wife and malafide intention of husband is also proved by the fact that after the ex- parte decree on 14-2-2017 he entered into second marriage within just four months on 17-6-2017. 11. Judgment in case of Karuna Kansal (supra) relied upon by counsel for husband does not help the husband, as in the said case the wife approached the court with delay after coming to know about the second marriage of husband. The first wife filed appeal assailing ex-parte decree for divorce alleging malafides against husband and second wife. The present case is on different footing no such circumstances are available. As far as the issue of second marriage of husband is concerned, it is the situation is which has been created by him, as immediately on obtaining ex-parte divorce decree on 14-2-2017 he entered into second marriage on 17-6-2017, just within four months. 12. While the instant case is of non service of wife as notices were wrongly sent at Bharatpur while admittedly she was residing at Mathura as is evident from other proceedings and notices were not properly served upon her, as in cases of Naresh Chandra Agarwal (supra) and Sushil Kumar Sabharwal (supra). 12. While the instant case is of non service of wife as notices were wrongly sent at Bharatpur while admittedly she was residing at Mathura as is evident from other proceedings and notices were not properly served upon her, as in cases of Naresh Chandra Agarwal (supra) and Sushil Kumar Sabharwal (supra). The wife has also not committed any further delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, as soon as she came to know about the divorce decree on 3-1-2018, she immediately filed the application for setting aside decree on 22-1-2018. Thus she has valid shown 'sufficient cause' for filing a belated application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree of divorce. In the present case no malafides or negligence or deliberate delay in moving application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by wife can be attributed. On the contrary, the action of husband in effecting service of notices upon wife at the address where she was not residing is doubtful and the action of the Family court of drawing ex-parte proceedings against the wife without ensuring effective service of notices on wife cannot be countenanced by this court, as such the same is not liable to be affirmed. The trial court has rightly condoned the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and setting aside the ex- parte decree. 13. The order impugned dated 1-12-2018 passed by the trial court is a well considered order objectively analysing all facts/ evidence. Nothing erroneous or illegal can even remotely be attributed thereto. There is no material illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error by the trial court in setting aside ex-parte decree for divorce and allowing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the impugned order does not call for any interference within scope of Section 115 CPC. Accordingly, it deserves to be upheld and it is so. 14. There is no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. 15. Record of the trial court be sent back. 16. Both parties husband and wife are directed to remain present before the trial court on May 16, 2022. Accordingly, it deserves to be upheld and it is so. 14. There is no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. 15. Record of the trial court be sent back. 16. Both parties husband and wife are directed to remain present before the trial court on May 16, 2022. In view of the fact that matters are pending between husband and wife under provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from 2016, the concerned trial Court is expected to draw and conclude the proceedings taking into account the provisions of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 17. Stay application, and other application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.