TMT R M RAJESWARI Vs. M RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent/wife in H.M.O.P. No. 79 of 2005 is the revision petitioner herein., The husband, who is the respondent in this revision petition, has filed a Petition under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act of 1954 for restitution of Conjugal Rights. The wife has filed counter. When the matter was taken up for trial, the petitioner while giving evidence has stated that she is not willing to live with her husband and they are living separately from 2000 onwards. It was at that stage, the husband filed a Petition in I.A. No. 158/2006 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 C.P.C to amend the main petition in order to include an alternative relief of divorce on the ground of desertion. That application was allowed by the trial Judge on 21.8.2007. Against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the wife.

(2.) The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while it is true that the petitioner, as a wife has given evidence in H.M.O.P. No. 79 of 2005 that she was not willing to live with her husband, but her case was that she was not able to live with her husband due to cruelty committed by the husband and therefore, it is not as if she has voluntarily left her husband. It is further contended that it was also open to her husband to file another application for divorce, which is not a bar,

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that this application is filed only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, Moreover, according to him, the cause of action arose only after the wife gave evidence stating that she was not willing to live. In view of that only an application was filed by the husband in I.A. No. 158/2006 to amend the main petition in order to include an alternative relief of divorce on the ground of desertion.