(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the Orders dated 23.05.2017 and 06.04.2017 made in I.A. No. 8 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 149 of 2016 and I.A. No. 11 of 2017 in I.A. No. 385 of 2016 in H.M.O.P. No. 149 of 2016, respectively, on the file of the learned Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore.
(2.) The first respondent/husband filed a petition for divorce against the revision petitioner in HMOP No. 149 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore, under Section 13(1)(i a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. When the matter was pending before the Family Court, Coimbatore, the revision petitioner/wife filed an application in I.A. No. 385 of 2016 in H.M.O.P. No. 149 of 2016 for interim maintenance and the first respondent/husband has also filed his counter. In the mean while, the first respondent filed an application in I.A. No. 8 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 149 of 2016, to implead one Sathish Kumar/Proposed second respondent as adulterer. The first respondent/husband has filed yet another application in I.A. No. 11 of 2017 in I.A. No. 385 of 2016 in H.M.O.P. No. 149 of 2016 to receive the additional counter. After hearing the matter, the learned Family Court Judge allowed the both applications and impleaded the second respondent herein in the HMOP. No. 149 of 2016. Aggrieved against the said orders passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Coimbatore the revision petitioner/wife has preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.
(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/wife would submit that the first respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the revision petitioner/wife on the file of the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore on the ground of cruelty with the false allegations. After service of summons, the revision petitioner has filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 385 of 2016 in HMOP. No. 149 of 2016 for interim maintenance before the said Court. In the said application, the first respondent/husband filed a counter alleging that the revision petitioner/wife is leading immoral life and she would not entitle to get maintenance. When the petition was pending, in order to avoid the payment of maintenance, the first respondent/husband filed an application, in IA. No. 11 of 2017 in I.A. No. 385 of 2016, to receive the additional counter in the said I.A., with false allegations that the revision petitioner/wife is leading immoral life with the proposed second respondent in the above divorce petition. The first respondent/husband has filed yet another application in I.A. No. 8 of 2017 in H.M.O.P. No. 149 of 2016 to implead the second respondent as proposed party in the main HMOP. The learned Family Court Judge, Coimbatore heard both the applications in I.A. No. 8 of 2017 in HMOP. No. 149 of 2016 and I.A. No. 11 of 2017 in I.A. No. 385 of 2016 in HMOP. No. 149 of 2016 and allowed the same. Therefore, the revision petitioner/wife has filed two separate revision petitions in C.R.P.Nos. 3944 and 3945 of 2017 before this Court. 3. 1. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that the allegations leveled in the affidavit filed by the first respondent is false and the learned Family Court Judge, Coimbatore has failed to considered the nature of the allegations, which is taken in the main application. Only in order to avoid to payment of interim maintenance, the first respondent has come forward with the false allegations and the learned Family Court Judge, Coimbatore has failed to considered the same and allowed both the applications, simply says that there is no prejudice cause to the revision petitioner/wife, if the interlocutory application, to receive the additional counter, is allowed. In I.A. No. 8 of 2017 to implead the proposed party as second respondent in HMOP. No. 149 of 2016 as adulterer, the Family Court has passed only the docket order without any reasons and no detailed order was passed and both the orders are liable to be set aside and the revision petitions have to be allowed.