TAMILMARAN Vs. JANET ROSALINE VINNERASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions are preferred challenging the separate orders condoning the delay for filing a petition for the restoration of H.M.O.P.No.71 of 2005 which the respondent has laid for restitution of conjugal rights and another similar petition for condoning the delay in setting aside an ex-parte order of dissolution of marriage in H.M.O.P.No.259 of 2006.

(2.) The undisputed facts may be stated briefly:

(3.) On transfer, the petition seeking dissolution of marriage was taken on file by the Sub Court, Trichirappalli in H.M.O.P.No.259 of 2006. Joint trial was ordered and evidence was recorded in H.M.O.P.No.259 of 2006. On 26.06.2007, the revision petitioner was examined as P.W.1. Be that as it may, on 31.03.2008, the petition in H.M.O.P.No. 259 of 2006 filed for dissolution of marriage was ordered ex-parte and H.M.O.P.No.71 of 2005 filed for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent herein was dismissed for default. Subsequently, on 02.09.2009, after the delay of 492 days, the respondent had filed I.A.No.130 of 2010 for condoning the delay for filing a petition for setting aside an ex-parte order passed in H.M.O.P.NO.259 of 2006 and I.A.No.425 of 2009 for condoning the delay in filing the petition for restoration of H.M.O.P.No.71 of 2005. The revision petitioner contested both these petitions and the trial court found it fit to condone the delay. These orders are now under challenge in these revisions.