S RAMPRAKASH Vs. R UMA MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is challenged herein is an order of the Family court, Coimbatore made in I. A. No. 827 of 2006, seeking to condone the delay of 672 days in making an application to set aside the ex parte order of restitution of conjugal rights.

(2.) THE court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and also looked into the materials available, in particular the order under challenge.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the submissions made and looking into the materials available, the court is of the considered opinion that the order of lower court does not require any interference. It is true, the husband/revision petitioner filed HMOP No. 92 of 2004. It is pertinent to point out that it was for restitution of conjugal rights. It is also pertinent to point out that the respondent/wife filed counter statement, detailing the reasons to deny the relief. She has clearly stated in the affidavit filed in support of the instant application that her child was not doing well when the matter was posted for enquiry on 29. 7. 2004 and hence, she could not attend the court and thereafter, while filing the instant application, there was a delay of 672 days. Now, the only question would be whether the delay could be condoned, which is actually huge. The court is of the considered opinion that the delay has got to be condoned for more reasons than one. First of all, it was a matrimonial matter. Secondly, when the husband came forward with the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife has filed counter statement stating reasons why the restitution of conjugal rights should not be granted. In the course of the affidavit filed in support of the application, she has clearly stated that when she was in matrimonial home, she was driven to her parental home and a child was born and she was all along in the parental home and apart from that, when she was living with her husband, there was cruel treatment exercised by her husband and her parents were forced to give 100 sovereigns of jewels, which were also given to the husband and when she went back to the matrimonial home, he was not satisfied and has pressurised further and under these circumstances, she went to parental home and she was under mental agony. All these things have been brought forth in the course of the affidavit. All would be indicative of the fact that she got defence to be put forth in HMOP No. 92 of 2004. Further, it could be seen that the entire cause of action for filing divorce application was only the order that was passed in HMOP No. 92 of 2004. All would go to show that the wife must be given an opportunity to put forth her defence in HMOP No. 92 of 2004, in particular while it was a matrimonial matter. The lower court has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter and since it was a matrimonial matter, it has allowed the application. This court is unable to see any reason to interfere with the order of the lower court. Hence, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.