THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.836/2011 Date of Order: 4-3-2011 Between: Potluri Venkata Tulasi Ramesh ..Petitioner and Dr. Pidikiti Kanchana ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.836/2011 Oral order: The petitioner who filed OP No.403/2008 for grant of divorce filed the present revision petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India complaining the action on the part of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada in not disposing of OP filed by him and for appropriate orders. A report is called for from the Family Court, Vijayawada. The report would disclose that on filing OP for grant of divorce by the petitioner/husband on 30-6-2008, the same was adjourned from time to time for enquiry, as the petitioner was not ready. While so, on 3-9-2010, the petitioner filed IA No.1076/2010 under Sec. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking custody of the child, Spandana, pending disposal of the OP, and the same was posted to 15-9-2010 along with main OP for issuing notice to the other side. The respondent took time on 9-11-2010 and on 11-1-2011 for filing counter. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed IA No.131/2011 on 27-1-2011 to advance IA No.1076/2010 and dispose of the same. The said petition was dismissed on 11-2-2011 with a direction to file counter in IA No.1076/2010 on 22-2-2011 without fail. On filing counter on 22-2-2011 and on hearing the petitioner, the said IA was posted to 3-3- 2011 for hearing the arguments of the respondent. On 8-10-2010, the petitioner also filed IA No.1336/2010 under order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Since no notice was given, the said IA was adjourned from time to time till 24-2- 2011. On 24-2-2011 a memo was filed giving notice to the respondent. Now, the said IA stands posted to 3-3-2011 for filing counter by the respondent. Only on disposal of IA No.1336/2010, OP could be proceeded with. In view of the report of the Family Court, Vijayawada, the complaint of the petitioner does not merit consideration. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the main OP, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.4-3-2011 kmr