ORDER 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Vijay Kumar for assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Hanumangarh in Misc. Civil Case No.81/2017, whereby the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty, was allowed ex-parte. 2. The present civil misc. appeal is time barred by 83 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of the present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. The facts pleaded in the appeal are that the marriage between the appellant, Vijay Kumar and respondent, Smt. Indra was solemnized on 23.05.2010 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born, residing with the respondent/wife. 4. The respondent/wife noticed change in behavior of the appellant/husband towards her. It is further pleaded that the appellant/husband and his family members made dowry demands by constantly harassing the respondent/wife to transfer her father’s land in name of the appellant/husband. The appellant/husband and his family members in pursuance of the demands beat the respondent/wife and daughter, who were subsequently thrown out of the matrimonial home, without any just cause. Aggrieved by such behavior, the respondent/wife preferred an application for divorce under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the Family Court, Hanumangarh which was allowed ex-parte vide order dated 16.04.2018. Hence, this Civil Misc. Appeal. 5. Shri Vijay Jain, learned counsel for the appellant urges that the ex-parte decree dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Family Court is absolutely unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that after receiving summons of divorce application appellant engaged a Lawyer (Nyay Mitra) to assist him in the matter. However, he did not attend the proceedings before Family Court on 05.03.2018 resulting in ex-parte proceedings being initiated against him. Learned counsel further submitted that appellant should not be made to suffer due to non appearance of lawyer (Nyay Mitra) before Family Court. On these grounds, a prayer was made that ex-parte decree of divorce dated 16.04.2018 directing dissolution of marriage may be set aside. 6. Per contra, Shri Nishant Motsara, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that summons of divorce application were duly served upon the appellant on 07.04.2017. The appellant on the aforesaid day appeared before Family Court and sought time for filing reply. 6. Per contra, Shri Nishant Motsara, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that summons of divorce application were duly served upon the appellant on 07.04.2017. The appellant on the aforesaid day appeared before Family Court and sought time for filing reply. The Family Court at the request of appellant on 11.05.2017, 24.06.2017, 16.08.2017, 04.09.2017, 12.10.2017, 17.11.2017, 16.12.2017 and 29.01.2018 granted time to file reply. The Family Court in view of aforesaid, on 05.03.2018 ordered ex-parte proceedings against appellant. Learned counsel submitted that despite several opportunities, divorce petition was not contested by the appellant. The order impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity deserving interference by this Court. 7. It was also brought to notice of the Court that after expiry of the statutory period for filing appeal against divorce decree dated 16.04.2018, respondent/wife has married one Shri Suresh Kumar son of Shri Radhey Shyam, resident of Chak 20, LNP, Manphool Singh Wala, Sriganganagar, (Rajasthan) on 11.10.2018 and the marriage has been registered by the Marriage Registration Officer on 27.02.2012. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order and record of the case, it becomes clear that the summons of the divorce application were duly served upon appellant. The appellant, despite several opportunities chose not to file reply and contest the prayer for divorce. It is pertinent to note here that no plausible explanation has been furnished for delay of 83 days in filing of present civil misc. appeal seeking setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings of divorce application. The prayer to set aside ex-parte proceedings of divorce petition cannot be allowed at this stage when the respondent has remarried with one Shri Suresh Kumar on 11.10.2018 and living happily with him. 9. We are of the view that the impugned order dated 16.04.2018 whereby Family Court, Hanumangarh granted ex-parte divorce decree on application filed by respondent/wife under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal, warranting interference therein. 10. As a consequence, we find no force in this appeal which is dismissed as being time barred and so also on merits.