H RAMALINGAM ALIAS KUMAR Vs. R JEYABANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows: -

(3.) 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.