Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pilla Sivaram vs Pilli Sudhasree on 8 April, 2022
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.351 OF 2022
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 04.2.2022 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in HMOP No.153 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The petitioner herein filed HMOP No.153 of 2018 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the HM Act) against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent/wife subsequently filed HMOP No.123 of 2020 under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the HM Act seeking divorce. Both the petitions are pending on the file of the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The petitioner/husband filed I.A.No.6 of 2022 to club both the HMOPs and conduct joint trial, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflict of judgments. The said application was opposed by the respondent/wife by filing a counter affidavit. The learned Senior Civil Judge, after considering the matter, dismissed the said petition vide order dated 04.2.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the stand taken in the I.A., inter alia submits that if both the matters viz., HMOP No.153 of 2018 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights and HMOP No.123 of 2020 filed by the wife seeking divorce, are clubbed together and joint trial is conducted, it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He further submits that the learned Senior Civil Judge instead of clubbing the matters, as sought for by the petitioner, rejected the prayer without considering the matter in proper perspective. Accordingly, the learned counsel seeks interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the order under revision suffers from failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the learned Trial Judge.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though, initially, the application for joint trial filed by the petitioner was opposed in the Trial Court, in view of the interim stay obtained by the petitioner in the present Revision Petition, the trial in the HMOPs is stalled and therefore, the respondent has no objection for clubbing both the HMOPs referred to above, to avoid further delay.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if both the matters 3 referred to above are clubbed together and a joint trial is conducted, chances of conflicting judgments can be avoided.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 04.2.2022 in I.A.No.6 of 2022. Consequently I.A.No.6 of 2022 in HMOP No.153 of 2018 stands allowed. The learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada shall club both the matters viz., HMOP No.153 of 2018 and HMOP No.123 of 2020 and conduct a joint trial. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J April 07, 2022.
vasu