ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the wife being aggrieved by the impugned order passed on IA.No.5 filed under section 151 CPC to club the petitions filed by her in MC.No.2/2023 with MC.No.50/2017 for the purpose of common trial and disposal.

2. It is the case of petitioner that, the respondent - husband filed the petition for divorce under section

13 (1) (1A)(ii) of Hindu Marriage Act against the wife. 3. On appearance she filed statement of objections and subsequently evidence came to be recorded and presently the said case is posted for arguments. This being the stage, petitioner - wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C No.2/ 2023 in the year 2023. It is apparently clear that subsequent to the matter being posted for arguments filed by respondent - husband, the present petition was filed by wife and in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife, respondent - husband filed statement of objections. The said case now is set down for the evidence of the parties. This being the status, present application IA.No.5 is filed by the petitioner - wife before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere to club both the matters, try the matters together and dispose of the matter so that the precious time of the Court be saved and also common evidence could be adduced in the matter.

4. This application was vehemently objected by the respondent - husband and on hearing both the parties the learned Civil judge dismissed the application not being satisfied with the averments and the reasons so assigned by the petitioner - wife.

5. Rejecting the application it is held by the learned Senior Civil Judge that, the evidence has been concluded in the petition filed by the respondent - husband. The matter is set out for arguments and it is held that cause of action in both the matters differs. Hence it may not be appropriate to club both the matters. Taking into consideration the conduct of petitioner - wife in filing the present application at a late stage and so also the restitution of conjugal rights have been filed after the conclusion of evidence adduced by both the parties, application was rejected.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent, the fact remains divorce petition has been filed by the husband and restitution of conjugal rights is filed by the wife. No doubt the divorce petition filed by the husband is prior to restitution of conjugal rights petition which is filed in the year 2017 and it is at the stage of addressing arguments so also the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is also at the stage of evidence. Both the parties are seeking separate reliefs. One for divorce other one seeking for restitution of conjugal rights.

7. In the matrimonial proceedings such prayers and petitions are common and either of the spouse files for divorce the other spouse is at liberty to file a petition for restitution or for judicial separation and when such petitions are filed it would be appropriate in the interest of both the parties as the facts would be same and so also the defence and the arguments it would be in the interest of both parties as well as the court to avoid delay and to avoid protraction of proceedings and to save the precious time of the Court matters deserve clubbing and trial together. Under the circumstances, the family Court should not adopt hyper technical approach in matters for clubbing and trying together in such matters including custody petition if any filed in such Court.

8. Presently we are dealing with a divorce petition filed by the respondent - husband and restitution petition filed by the wife which is pending in the same court.

9. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. It would be in the interest of both parties if the matters are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order which will avoid any divergent opinion being expressed by the court and it would save precious time of the