GRANDHI VENKATA CHITTI ABBAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, dated 10-7-1998 made in unnumbered IA in GR No.707 (dated 23-6-1998) in OP No.8 of 1998 wherein the subordinate Court refused to advance the hearing of OP No.8 of 1998, filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, 'the Act') seeking divorce by mutual consent, from 28-12-1998 to 29-6-1998, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case are that the second petitioner was given in marriage to the first petitioner about a decade back and she has also given birth to two daughters aged about 9 years and 7 years. As per the version of the second petitioner-wife, the first petitioner-husband was habituated for bad vices apart from developing grouse for giving birth to two female children and started harassing the second petitioner both mentally and physically. By 1995 no point of retrieval has taken place and serious differences have arisen and it has become impossible for her to live with him. In those circumstances, she came out of the marital house and initially filed MC No. 17 of 1995 under Section 125 Crl. PC on the file of District Munsif Court, Rajam, seeking maintenance and the Court seemed to have granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.500.00p.m. to the second petitioner and her children. Thereafter, she filed a regular petition OS No. 18 of 1997 in the same Court seeking maintenance under the Act. In the interregnum period she has also initiated criminal proceedings against the first petitioner and his parents by giving complaint to the police under Section 498-A 1PC which was taken on file by the Magistrate as CCNo.44 of 1996. All these facts have established that the marriage has broken irrevocably and no point of retrieval has emerged. In those circumstances, the village elders and well-wishers of both the parties entered in the scene and effected a compromise whcreunder sufficient safeguards were provided for the maintenance of the second petitioner and marriage of her children, apart from the fact that both the parties agreed to take divorce by mutual consent. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, both the parties filed OP No.8 of 1998 under Section 13-B of the Act on 28-6-1998 and the same was posted to 28-12-1998 i.e., after six months of presentation of the OP as required under the statute i.e., under Section 13B(2) of the Act. But under the terms of rhe compromise, as no maintenance was provided during the pendency of the divorce application and the amounts agreed to be paid by the first petitioner have to be paid only after the grant of divorce, the petitioner came up with this application to advance the hearing of the OP under Rule 109(2) of Civil Rules of Practice and with a request to advance the hearing of the case to 29-6-1998. The senior Civil Judge in unnumbered IA GR No.707 dated 23-6-1998 dismissed the application, as the case has to be taken up for hearing only after expiry of the statutory period of six months from the date of filing of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.

(3.) I summoned both the parties to find out whether there is any last minute possibility of saving the marriage. While the first petitioner came to the Court in almost hangover state, the second petitioner categorically pointed out her position and submitted that it is impossible for her to live with the first petitioner. It is only after failure of all the efforts the second petitioner was forced to initiate the above proceedings against the first petitioner and she is not interested in continuing marital relations with the first petitioner. From the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the marriage between the parties has broken in unequivocal terms and the possibility of revival of the marital relationship is practically remote.