Saroj Handa vs Yash Pal Handa

J.V. Gupta, Acting C.J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, in the proceedings arising out of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The husband filed the petition for divorce on August 19, 1985. During the pendency of those proceedings, efforts for reconciliation were made and as a result, on June 17, 1988, according to the wife, she had gone to live with her husband and during this period, they cohabited. Later on, she moved an application dated July 28, 1988, that since the parties bad cohabited during the pendency of the proceedings, the divorce petition as such was liable to be dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge framed the issues on the said application or October 26, 1988, and adjourned the case for evidence of the wife. However, no evidence was produced by the wife on three dates when the impugned order was passed directing,

"In my opinion, there should not be separate trial of the application moved by the wife on 27-8-1988. There should be trial of this application along with trial of the main petition for divorce. In the main petition for divorce, Yash Pal has been examined and cross-examined. He can be made again available to the wife for cross-examination by her on the point whether there had been any co-habitation between them as alleged by her in application dated 27-8-1988, and if so, whether that co-habitation tantamounted to condonation of cruelty and desertion, if any, on her part."

Dissatisfied with the same, the wife had filed this petition that once the issues were framed in the application, then subsequently, the order could not be reviewed by the trial Court suo motu, when no application, was filed on behalf of the either party to review the earlier order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no justification with the trial Court to review the order and, therefore, the impugned order was illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Viswanathan v. Muthuswamy Gounder AIR 1978 Mad 221 and Bussa Ansuya Vs. Bussa Rajaiaha, .

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

It is not the question of reviewing the earlier order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. As a matter of fact, when the wife failed to produce her evidence in support of the application, the impugned order was passed as to decline the matter as a whole instead of deciding it piecemeal. The impugned order does not amount to reviewing the earlier order as contended on behalf of the petitioner. There is no illegality in the impugned order as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Since farther proceedings were stayed by this Court at the time of the motion hearing, the parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, on 22-2-1990.