SEETHARAMAN Vs. VADUVAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent herein is his wife, THE revision petitioner filed the petition h. M. O. P. No. 83 of 1987 under Sec. l3 (l) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as'the Act'), praying for a decree for divorce against the respondent. THE revision petitioner alleged in his petition that the marriage between him and the respondent took place at Panruti on 19. 8. 1983 and the respondent was not ordinarily and continuously living with the revision petitioner subsequent to the marriage and had chosen to live with her parents after deserting the revision petition and that the panchayat convened for the purpose of settlement became in vain. THE revision petitioner has added that he filed H. M. O. P. No. 667 of 1985 for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained an ex parte decree on 23. 4. 1987 and that the even thereafter the respondent had refused to go and live with the revision petitioner. After exhausting the steps to get at the respondent, the revision petitioner hastened to file the petition for divorce. This was resisted by the respondent. Of course, she admitted her marriage with the revision petitioner as true and valid, but she all that the revision petitioner had treated her with cruelty by compelling her to get sridhana from her parents'house quite often. She contended that she was deserted by the revision petitioner in June, 1984. She however stated that she was willing to go and live with the revision petitioner, when the revision petitioner filed H. M. O. P. No. 667 of 1985. She finally contended that there is no reason for granting a decree of divorce against her. Pending enquiry on the original petition, the respondent wife filed I. A. No. 184 of 1989 under Sec. 27 of the Act praying for a direction to the revision petitioner to return the gold jewels mentioned in the petition of the respondent. She alleged therein that the revision petitioner has married a second wife by name Gunabushani and that she is wearing the gold necklace of the respondcnt, weighing 40 grams ,whic h is not to the liking of the respondent, stated that of the various items of jewellery, a gold coin weighing one sovereign, presented to her as'seer'during the first Deepavali,is with the revision petitioner. This was opposed by the revision petitioner slating that he is not in possession of any gold jewels belonging to the respondent. He also denied the allegation that he has married a second wife by name Gunabushani.

(2.) AFTER enquiry of the main original petition and the interlocutory application, the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, granted a decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent deserted the revision petitioner and allowed the original petition. As regards the return of the jewels, the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, rejected the claim of the wife/respondent. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Subordinate Judge, cuddalore, the respondent herein preferred C. M. A. No. 29of 1990 as a single appeal, before the District Judge, South Arco t at Cuddalore. On the objection raise d on behalf of the revision petitioner that no single appeal can be maintained on two orders passed by the Sub Court in O. P. and LA. , and that appeal could be filed on the orders, in I. A. The learned District Judge, South Arco t at cuddalore. "the prayer in the memo of appeal is for accepting this appeal and the petition for return of jewel in I. A. No. 184 of 1989. Therefore, no separate appeal is necessary for I. A. No. 184 of 1989. Appeal is maintainable for both orders. . . . . " Now, the revision petitioner has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the correctness of the said order of the learned District Judge, South Arco t at cuddalore. He would reiterate his contention that no single appeal as c. M. A. No. 29 of 1990 is maintainable for two orders passed by the Subordinate judge. On two different subjects and that though appeal can lie as against the order passed in H. M. O. P. No. 83 of 1987, no appeal can be maintained with regard to the order passed in l. A. No. 184 of 1989, which is an order passed under sec. 27 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that if at all, a revision alone can lie as against the order passed in i. A. No. l84 of l989 and that as the same has not been filed by the respondent so far, her claim for the return of the jewels asked for in I. A. No. 184 of 1989 and rejected by the Subordinate Judge cannot be gone into by the lower appellate court.

(3.) CONSIDERING all aspects, 1 hold that the respondent is not entitled to prefer appeal against the order passed in I. A. No. 184 of 1989 and that the appeal filed in the District Court, South Arcot at Cuddalore in C. M. A. No. 29 of 1990 must be deemed to relate to the decree of divorce. The learned District Judge shall treat the said appeal accordingly and dispose of it expeditiously in accordance with law. The civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. .