1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD)(MD)No.2147 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION(MD) No.1 of 2011 Mariappan .. Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner Vs. Karpagavalli rep. by her father and guardian Sankara Pandia Mudaliar .. Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 16.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.52 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2009 by the Sub Court, Sankarankovil. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabhu ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 16.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.52 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2009 by the Sub Court, Sankarankovil. 2. The revision petitioner herein as petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2009 on the file of the Court below for getting the relief of divorce, wherein the present respondent has been shown as respondent and represented by her father as guardian. In H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2009, an ex-parte order has been passed on 23.03.2010 and in order to set aside the same, the guardian of the respondent as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.52 of 2010 and the Court below has allowed the same on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-. Against the conditional order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that even though the father of the respondent has been shown as guardian, in the counter filed in H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2009, it has been specifically stated that the respondent is not suffering from any mental illness and under the said circumstances, the guardian of the respondent is totally incompetent to file the present petition in Interlocutory Application No.52 of 2010 and the Court below without considering the infirmity attached to the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.52 of 2010, has erroneously passed the conditional order and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4. It is an admitted fact that in H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2009, the father of the respondent has been shown as her guardian. Therefore all proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2009 can be initiated by the guardian of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed by the guardian of the respondent in Interlocutory Application No.52 of 2010. Since the father of the respondent has been shown as her guardian, the present petition can be filed by him and there is no mistake on the part of the guardian in filing the present petition. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly passed the impugned order. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.52 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2009 by the Sub Court, Sankarankovil is confirmed. However the Sub Court, Sankarankovil is directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2009 before the end of February, 2012 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil. Copy to The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Smn SR : 23.12.2011 : 2p/3c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2147 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 14.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/