H. Ramalingam @ Kumar vs R. Jeyabanu

The revision Petitioner has filed the above revision to set aside the order dated 19.08.2010 passed in I.A. No. 55 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No.

187 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.

The short facts of the case are as follows:

The revision Petitioner married the Respondent on 11.07.1997 at Pushpam Kalyana Mandapam, North main street, Thanjavur town as per Hindu

Customs and Rites. After the marriage, difference of opinion arose between the Petitioner and his wife/respondent. Hence, the Respondent/wife

filed HMOP No. 187 of 2009 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur for divorce. The said divorce petition was opposed by the

revision Petitioner after filing counter statement. On 31.03.2010, the above said divorce petition came for hearing. On that day, the revision

Petitioner was called absent. The Respondent/wife was examined as P.W. 1 by her proof affidavit dated 12.02.2010 and documents were marked

as Ex. P.1 to P.7. The allegations levelled against the revision Petitioner remained unchallenged. Thereafter, the learned Judge was pleased to allow

the divorce petition with the direction to the revision Petitioner to return the article Nos. 1 to 8 as listed in the divorce petition.

Aggrieved by the said order, the revision Petitioner has filed a set aside application along with condone delay petition. The said applications

were opposed by the Respondent/wife. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of counsels on both sides, allowed the set aside application

with the condition to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as interim alimony before the court, on or before 08.09.2010, failing which the set aside

application will be dismissed.

Aggrieved by the said order and decretal order passed in the set aside application in I.A. No. 55 of 2010, the above revision has been filed by

the revision Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner argued that the Respondent is an employed woman and working in a

private company in Chennai. Therefore, the imposition of deposit Rs. 20,000/- ordered by the learned Judge is incorrect. The revision Petitioner

has filed HMOP No. 3103 of 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the learned I Additional Family Court, Chennai. The Learned

Counsel further argued that if the ex-parte decree is operated against the revision Petitioner, the interest of the revision Petitioner will be

prejudiced. Therefore, it was argued that the ex-parte decree should be set aside and the case decided on merits.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that the divorce petition has been filed in the month of October 2009, and the revision

Petitioner has filed counter statement in the said divorce petition.

Thereafter, the revision Petitioner has wantonly and deliberately not appeared before the learned Judge for enquiry. Thereafter, the

Respondent/wife proved her case by way of filing proof affidavit and marking of documents. As such, the learned Judge, considering the above

aspect, had passed the order with the conditions. As such, there is no infirmity in the said order.

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner submitted that the revision Petitioner is an unemployed person and so he is unable to

deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as alimony which was imposed by the learned Judge. The Learned Counsel further argued that in the said divorce

petition several issues ought to be decided. Therefore, trial is imperative.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the Learned Counsels on either side, and on perusing the impugned order

of the learned Judge, this Court is of the considered opinion that the divorce petition in HMOP No. 187 of 2009 on the file of the Principal

Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur has to be disposed on merits. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the above revision petition with the following

condition. (1) The revision Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/- as was imposed by the learned Principal Judge,

Thanjavur, on or before 12.09.2011. After such deposit has been made, the learned Judge has to dispose of the HMOP No. 187 of 2009 within a

period of three months, without being influenced by this Court''s discussions. Accordingly ordered.

In the result, the above civil revision petition is disposed of with the above observations. Consequently, the order and decretal order passed in

I.A. No. 55 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No. 187 of 2009 dated 19.08.2010 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur is modified.

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.