B REVATHY Vs. N BASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the wife to struck down the proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 118 of 2010 filed by the respondent/husband as against the revision petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of the marriage that took place between them on 19.5.1991.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner, the respondent/husband originally filed H.M.O.P. No. 47 of 2005 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, to pass a decree for divorce, dissolving the marriage between him and the revision petitioner that took place on 19.5.1991. Since the revision petitioner was residing at Trichy, she filed Tr. CMP. (MD) No. 9067 of 2005 before the Madurai Bench of this Court to transfer the said petition from the file of Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam to the file of the Principal Sub Court, Trichy and the same was also ordered on 9.8.2006 and the petition was renumbered as H.M.O.P. No. 298 of 2006; but the said petition was dismissed for default since the husband did not appear before the Court. Now, after the lapse of five years, again the respondent/husband filed a petition for the same relief in H.M.O.P. No. 118 of 2010 before the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai.

(3.) It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the present petition is not maintainable since the cause of action in the present petition and the earlier petition, which was dismissed for default, and the relief claimed in both the petitions are one and the same. The learned counsel further submitted that since the revision petitioner had obtained an order from this Court transferring the earlier petition from the file of Sub Court, Nagapattinam to the file of Sub Court, Trichy, wantonly the petitioner left the matter to go for default and after a lapse of five years, he filed a fresh petition before the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai for the same relief, only to harass the revision petitioner. This amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 118 of 2010 are liable to be struck down. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied on the decision in Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya Nadar Uravinmurai v. Selvaraj, 2009 2 CTC 87.