KUMARESAN Vs. ASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON ORDER: Petitioner herein, who is the husband of the respondent herein, filed a petition under Sec.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as H.M.C.O.P. No.54 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Trichy, praying the Court to issue an order in his favour by dissolving the marriage between him and the respondent, solemnized on 3.6.1982 at Neelakanda Swami Koil, Padmanabhapuram, Thakkalai, Nagercoil, according to Hindu custom and rites prevailing in the community. The respondent herein resisted the said petition on various grounds and the petition is now pending. While so, respondent herein filed two applications viz., (a) I.A. No.274 of 1999 praying the Court to direct the petitioner herein/ husband to pay the respondent/ wife a sum of Rs.500 per month towards alimony pendente lite, and (b) I.A. No.275 of 1999 praying the Court to direct the petitioner herein/ husband to pay the respondent/ wife a sum of Rs.5,000 towards litigation fees. Petitioner herein resisted both the petitions. The said applications were disposed of by the trial Court by two separate orders dated 24.8.2001. Being aggrieved by the said orders, present revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/ husband.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the applications, respondent has stated that the petitioner is an employee of BHEL, Trichy and getting a regular and fabulous income of Rs.60,000 per annum and that taking into consideration the claims made by her are quite reasonable, those applications may be ordered.

(3.) THIS Court perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has in fact, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.275 of 1999, has categorically stated that the respondent is working in Khadi Board and drawing a salary of Rs.4,500 per month. Normally speaking, he could have summoned the concerned official from that department, who would have placed before the Court the required materials. It is not known as to why the respondent/ wife, even after receiving notice from the Court, has not turned out. In the circumstances of this case, this Court feels that it might be that she has not appeared before the Court so that, she can avoid divulging about her employment in Kadhi Board to this Court. In fact, in the revision petition also petitioner has raised a specific ground that the respondent is employed in Kadhi Board. Even though, normally this Court will not come to the rescue of the litigant who failed to reasonably prosecute the matter, that is to say in this case, marking appointment order or salary certificate or summoning the concerned official from the Kadhi Board, this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is inclined to give one more chance to the petitioner/ husband to prove his claim viz., the respondent/ wife is employed in Kadhi Board, BHEL, Trichy.