ex parte order was obtained by fraudulent means. He further submitted that the attitude of the husband is evident from the fact that he is practicing at the Courts at Eluru, West Godavari District, and the parties lastly lived together in the same area, but, he filed petition seeking divorce before the Court at Peddapuram, just based on one fact that their marriage was performed at Sri Satyanarayana Swamy temple, Annavaram, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court at Peddapuram. He further submitted that since there is no actual service of notice on the wife, she was not aware of filing of the petition for divorce or passing of the ex parte order till she received the reply notice. He further submitted that the husband has not so far re-married, and therefore, even if the delay is condoned, and the petition in the main OP is disposed of on merits, no prejudice would be caused to the husband and on the other hand, the matter can be adjudicated on merits by taking pleadings and the evidence of both parties into consideration. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Srinivas Kumar Mowle v. Chandrasekhar Mowle and others2 , wherein para 12 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Swaroop v. Afool Chand [AIR 1983 SC 355] was referred which is noted hereunder:
