COMMON ORDER

In the above three revision petitions, revision petitioner is the husband and respondent is the wife. Revision petitioner/husband filed I.D.O.P.No.106 of 2013 for divorce. In the said IDOP, husband filed I.A.No.885 of 2013 for interim custody of the female child born to them. Wife filed I.A.No.1192 of 2013 for interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each to her and her female child and also Rs.1,00,000/- for litigation expenses.

2. The allegation of the husband is that when his wife was pregnant, in July 2010, she went to her parents house and has not returned back. It is alleged that when he visited wife’s place in response to her call on her birthday, he was abused and not permitted to see his child. Finding that he lost all hopes of living a peaceful and happy life, he said to have filed IDOP and sought custody of the female child.

3. On the other hand, denying the allegations of her husband, wife/respondent filed counter in IDOP stating that on 27.3.2011, on the pretext of seeing the child, petitioner/husband came to her maternal home along with his friends and assaulted her father, brother, damaged house hold things. Further, in the IDOP case, she filed petition to transfer the OP before this court and the case was transferred and she submits that she spent a huge amount towards litigation expenses. She claims interim maintenance to look after the girl child.

4. The learned Judge, after determining the issues before him, granted visitation right to the husband to see his daughter once in a month. Further, the learned Judge directed the husband to pay Rs.5000/- as interim alimony to the wife for maintenance of the girl child from the date of O.P., till the date of disposal of the O.P.

5. The revision petitioner/husband, being aggrieved by the directions of the learned Judge, over visitation right and interim alimony filed CRP.784 and 785 of 2015.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband that respondent/wife is employed and her father is a heart patient and so they are not in a position to take care of the child, whereas, the petitioner’s parents are well educated and retired from Government’s service and they will take care of the child. The petitioner therefore, assailed the direction of the learned Judge who ordered for st visiting the child once in a month on 1 Sunday and submitted that father is the natural guardian and depriving the custody is not correct.

7. As far as direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.5000/- per month for maintenance of his child is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that due to various litigations, he has to attend several court hearings and he is not in a position to attend to his work and he is without job and so he could not pay Rs.5000/- from the date of O.P.

8. The revision petitioner/husband filed CRP.No.3986 of 2018 before this court on 05.12.2018. In this revision petition, he seeks to struck off I.A.No.600 of 2018 filed by the wife seeking to set aside the exparte decree of divorce granted in favour of the petitioner in IDOP.No.106 of 2013.

9. A careful perusal of the typed set of papers would go to show that between the husband and wife, series of complaints and petitions filed before various forums. They also approached this court for transfer of I.D.O.P., and also for disposal of I.As and IDOP within a time frame. This court, by order dated 11.09.2017 directed the District cum Sessions Court, Thiruvalur, to dispose of the pending IAs and IDOP within one month. On 25.04.2018, the learned Judge passed the decree of divorce as the respondent called absent, she was set exparte.

10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent/wife abstained from attending the hearings on many occasions which resulted in passing an exparte decree. After the decree was passed, marriage has also been fixed for the petitioner/husband. In such situation, the respondent/wife with ulterior m