1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.794 of 2011 Thangavel ...Petitioner/Petitioner -Vs- Santhaseela @ Shanthi ..Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned sub-Judge, Palani, Dindigul District to dispose of the H.M.O.P.No.85 of 2009. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Udhayakumar *** ORDER The husband is before this Court seeking a direction to the trial Court for early disposal of H.M.O.P.No.85 of 2009, which has been filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that H.M.O.P No.85 of 2009 was filed in the month of September 2009 and counter statement was already filed on 12.07.2010 by the respondent/wife. Thereafter, the matter was being adjourned. Therefore, the husband is before this Court seeking early disposal of the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights. 3.A close scrutiny of the records would show that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 30.08.1995 and the child was born on 15.04.1998 and their child is aged about 13 years. There are allegations and counter allegations, against each other by the petitioner and the respondent in their respective pleadings before the trial Court. Moreover, in the counter statement, the respondent in paragraph '6' contended that she and her minor child already filed O.S.No.97 of 2009 seeking partition of the properties against the petitioner herein and his sisters and the said suit is pending before the Sub-Court, Palani. Only to get over the partition suit, the respondent herein filed that the restitution of conjugal right petition deliberately with mala fide intention. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.According to the petitioner, the respondent is living away from him from 1998 onwards and thereafter, no steps have been taken by the petitioner herein till 2009 i.e., for a period of eleven years. If the directions are given as prayed for to dispose of HMOP, it will definitely have impact on the disposal of O.S.No.97 of 2009 filed by the respondent herein. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 5.The petitioner is not in a position to give the details about the stage of O.S.No.97 of 2009. Therefore, HMOP No.85 of 2009 alone cannot be directed to be disposed of. It could be disposed simultaneously with O.S.No.97 of 2009 and no preference could be given to HMOP.No.85 of 2009 alone if given, it would prejudice the rights of the respondent. Therefore, the interest of justice requires to direct HMOP.No.85 of 2009 and O.S.No.97 of 2009 to be tried simultaneously and disposed by the trial Court, on merits as per law. 6.With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge, Palani +One Cc to Mr.P.Udhayakuamr, Advocate, SR.No.14450 gsr rl/3c – 6.5.2011 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.794 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/