Madras High Court
Annapoorani vs Srinivasan on 8 December, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2781 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2781 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.20204 of 2021
Annapoorani .. Petitioner
Vs.
Srinivasan .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the order dated 09.11.2019 made in
I.A.No.124 of 2019 in HMOP.No.130 of 2018 on the file of the Family
Court at Dharmapuri, by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Pachiyappan
********
ORDER
Challenge in this Revision is to the order of the learned Family
Judge, Dharmapuri, condoning the delay of 286 days in filing an application
to set aside the ex parte decree dated 02.08.2018 made in HMOP.No.130 of
2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2781 of 2021
2. HMOP.No.130 of 2018 is filed by the wife seeking restitution of
conjugal rights. It will be relevant to mention that the husband had
launched proceedings for divorce in HMOP.No.82 of 2017 at Sub-Court,
Harur and the same is pending.
3. While so, the Original Petition before the Family Court,
Dharmapuri in HMOP.No.130 of 2018 came to be decreed ex parte on
02.08.2018. On the said date, an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal
rights was granted. Claiming that there was a mediated settlement, under
which the wife had agreed to consent for divorce, if the husband transfers 2
acres of land and house owned by him, to the children. But, the wife in
breach of the said settlement, had obtained the ex parte decree for restitution
of conjugal rights.
4. The husband sought for condonation of delay in seeking to set
aside the ex parte decree. Pendency of the proceedings for divorce and the
fact that the husband had transferred the property to the children were also
projected as reasons. The learned Family Judge, who considered the
application, fortunately on a pragmatic view, condoned the delay on
condition that the husband pays a sum of Rs.2,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2781 of 2021
5. I have heard Mr.M.Pachiyappan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
6. Mr.M.Pachiyappan, would vehemently contend that the Family
Judge erred in condoning the delay. He would also add that the husband was
regularly appearing and prosecuting the proceedings, before the Sub-Court,
Harur.
7. I am unable to countenance the submission of the counsel.
Admittedly the proceedings for divorce launched by the husband which
were earlier in point of time are pending. This ex parte decree would
prejudice his interest in the said proceedings. Ideally, the parties should
have got both the cases clubbed together, as there is a possibility of
conflicting judgments, if they are heard separately. I find that the Family
Court has exercised its discretion and I do not see any extraordinary reason
to interfere with the same. The trial Court has also imposed costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2781 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
8. I therefore do not see any merits in this Revision and it is
accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.12.2021
dsa
Internet :Yes
Index : No
Speaking order
To
The Family Court Judge, Dharmapuri.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2781 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
