N.NIKITTA Vs. M.PRASHANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.1393 of 2023, dtd. 1/9/2023, by the learned Principal Family Judge, Chennai, the Revision Petitioner is before this Court with the present Revision.

(2.) Ms.Kanimozhi Mathi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner and the respondent got married according to the Hindu rites and customs on 22/11/2015 at 'Amaravathi Thirumana Mandapam', Neyveli. It was an arranged marriage and it is registered as SI.No.449/2015 in the Sub Registrar Office, Vadallur. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.4592 of 2023, on the file of 2nd Addl Family Court, Chennai, for cruelty and the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.651 of 2023, on the file of 3rd Addl. Family Court, Chennai, on the ground of Cruelty and Adultery. The petitioner further submits that due to extreme influence asserted by respondent in the H.M.O.P.No.4592 of 2017, before the 2nd Additional Family Court, Chennai, and to avoid conflict of interest and multiple proceeding and judgment, the petitioner filed Tr.O.P.No.1323 of 2023 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.4592 of 2017 from the file of 2nd Addl. Family Court, Chennai and to transfer the same to the 3rd Addl. Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.651 of 2023 in joint trail. The said petition was allowed and H.M.O.P.No.651 of 2023 is withdrawn from the file of Addl. Family Court-III, Chennai and transferred to the file of Addl Family Court-II, Chennai, for simultaneous trail.

(3.) The learned counsel further submitted that after transfer of the papers, a Memo for joint trial was filed on 5/1/2024. The respondent filed reply Memo and objected vehemently. The 2 nd Addl. Family Court, Chennai, the learned Principal Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai, ordered simultaneous trial and therefore, rejected the memo for joint trial. Further, H.M.O.P.No.651 of 2023 filed by the petitioner has ripped for trial. It is further submitted that, if the simultaneous trail is conducted, there is again a chance of rendering multiple judgement in the HMOP's filed by the petitioner and the respondent separately. The learned judge ought to have allowed the Tr.O.P.No.1323 of 2023 filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.4592 of 2017 from the file of II Addl Family Court, Chennai, to the file of III Addl Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.651 of 2023 in joint trail instead of simultaneous trail, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. But, the learned Judge failed to note that the respondent intentionally allowed the H.M.O.P.No.651 of 2023, for ex-parte and filed restoration petition only for the purpose not allowing to combine both cases together.