K NEERAJAALIASRAJANI Vs. K NARSINGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Per Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.) The respondent in O.P.No.6 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Warangal is the petitioner herein. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17-9-2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal in I.A.No.128 of 2003 in O.P.No.6 of 2000 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are as follows: The petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent herein. Originally, the respondent filed O.P.No.8 of 1997 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The marriage between the parties has taken place on 22-2-1996 and the said O.P. was presented on 12-2-1997 i.e..within the statutory period of one year. Along with the O.P. he filed an interlocutory application under Section 14(1) of the Act praying for leave permitting him to present the petition under Section 13 of the Act within the statutory period of one year. However, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal was not inclined to take it as an exceptional case and accordingly returned the papers on 17-2-1997 for filing after the statutory period. Subsequently, the matter was represented on 25-2-1997 as the prohibition of one year imposed under Section 14 of the Act was over by that time. Thereafter the file was made over to the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The petitioner-wife filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. raising an objection that as it is a matrimonial matter and it should be tried by the Family Court but not by the Senior Civil Judge's Court. Accepting the said contention, the learned Judge transferred the matter to the Family Court and thus it was renumbered as O.P.No.6 of 2000. When the matter was coming up for cross-examination of the respondent-husband, the petitioner herein again raised an objection stating that originally the O.P. was filed within a period of one year and as such it is not maintainable and accordingly she filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and the same was opposed by the respondent-husband. On a consideration of the entire material on record, the Court below rejected the contention put forth by the petitioner-wife and accordingly dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) Heard both the learned counsel.