ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 2-3-2005, passed by the Court of Family Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in an application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.
2. The first respondent is the wife of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are their children. Respondents 1 to 3 (for short ‘the respondents’) filed O.P. for maintenance against the petitioner. They alleged that the petitioner herein started harassing the 1st respondent in various methods and pressurized her to get a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-from her parents. It is also alleged that he has physically assaulted and ill-treated her. Reference was made to submission of complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C. read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act before the Hon’ble XXII M.M.-cum-Mahila Court at Nampally, Hyderabad and filing of O.P.No. 35 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights. It was alleged that the complaints were withdrawn, on an undertaking by the petitioner that he would stop harassment and lookafter the respondents well.
3. The respondents claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month from 1-6-2002. On the assumption that the corresponding Court fee is to be paid under the A.P. Suits Valuation and Courts Fee Act, they presented the O.P. as indigent persons, duly impleading the petitioner herein as the 1st respondent and the District Collector, Hyderabad as the 2nd respondent.
4. The Family Court passed an order, dated 3-11-2004 according permission to the respondents to sue as indigent persons. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the order, dated 3-11-2004, stating that the same was passed without hearing him. The Family Court rejected the same.
5. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, appeared as party-in-person. He submits that the Family Court passed the order, dated 3-11-2004, without hearing him and that his rights are affected thereby. He submits that he was always ready and willing to maintain the respondents and the O.P. was filed only with a view to harass him. He contends that the 1st respondent is employed in a private firm and is also in possession and enjoyment of immovable properties; and that the claim of maintenance is without any basis. He places reliance upon the judgments of the Madras High Court in Velu v. Nagaraja Nattar AIR 1980 Mad. 203 and Chellammal v. Muthulakshmi AIR (32) 1945 Mad. 296, and the judgments of the Calcutta High Court in Radha Raman Saha v. Sitanath Indian Cases 1921 Cal. 738 and Noni Krishna Bosak v. Nabamonjuri Dassi AIR 1927 Cal. 464.
6. Smt. P. Vimala Devi, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner deliberately avoided to receive the notices and he has been watching the proceedings in the Court physically. She submits that despite their financial hardships, the respondents had to incur huge expenditure for sending several notices to the petitioner and thereafter, to publish notice in a local newspaper. She contends that the payment of Court fee is a matter between the Court and the respondents and that the petitioner has no say in the matter. She also refers to a Circular issued by this Court, wherein the O.Ps in the Family Court were exempted from paying Court fee and urges that the whole exercise was, in fact, superfluous.
7. The respondents filed the O.P. for maintenance before the Family Court. They invoked the provisions of Order XXXIII C.P.C. and sought permission of the Court to sue as indigent persons. Rule 6 of Order XXXIII C.P.C. mandates that the Court shall issue notices to the opposite parties in an application filed under Rule 1 thereof. It was in this context that the Family Court numbered the application as O.P.No. 31 of 2004, and issued notices to the two respondents. A perusal of the docket order of the Family Court discloses that the notice was served on the first respondent by 8-3-2004, the first date of hearing itself, whereas the notice sent to the petitioner herein was not served. The O.P. was adjourned to 24-5-2004. By that time, the Registered Post sent to the petitioner herein was returned as not claimed. On the directions of the Court, the notice was affixed on the door of the petitioner. He was not present, when the matter was called on 1-7-2004. On 24-8-2004, a representation was made on behalf of the respondents herein that the petitioner being a practicing Advocate was not only deliberately avoiding notices, but, in fact, he was watching the proceedings in the Court physically. Thereafter, the respondents moved an application for permission to effect substituted service. On such permission having been accorded, they got a notice published by indicating the date as 7-10-2004. The petitioner did not turn up on that date. Hence, the Court proceeded to pass an order on 3-11-2004 to examine the application, recorded the evidence of P.W.1 in chief, and accorded permission. On the basis of the permission so accorded, the petition was numbered as O.P.No. 795 of 2004. In this O.P. also, the petitioner was set ex parte on 25-1-2005. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 124 of 2005 to set aside the order, dated 25-1-2005. The trial Court allowed the same on 2-3-2005 and set aside the order, dated 25-1-2005. Thereby, the petitioner was accorded permission to contest the matter.
8. The facts narrated above disclose that the petitioner was harassing the respondents in all possible manners. He took advantage of the fact that he is in legal profession and exhibited all his skills only to harass his wife and children. This Court takes serious exception to the conduct of the petitioner. In a way, the innocence on the part of the respondents became handy for the petitioner. The applications filed before the Family Court are not to be treated as suits and the Family Courts Act prescribes a different procedure for adjudication of the disputes brought before it. Despite the unique nature of the proceedings before the Family Courts, instances were not lacking where the Family Court started numbering the petitions as suits and insisting on payment of Court fee. It was in this context that the High Court issued a Circular in R.C.No. 1643/SO/1995, dated 16-6-2004, directing the Family Courts to number all the cases filed before them as original petitions and collect fixed Court fee of Rs. 10/-. Obviously, not being aware of this Circular, the respondents herein proceeded under the assumption that they have to pay the Court fee. In view of the Circular, the whole exercise of seeking permission under Order XXXII C.P.C, the issuance of notices, granting of permission, has become superfluous. Equally redundant is the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.
9. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would have got attracted, if only the order was passed by the trial Court without ensuring service of notice. Once it has emerged that the petitioner was served with notice, the principle laid down does not apply to the facts of this case.
10. The petitioner was set ex parte in the O.P., after it was numbered. The Court had shown indulgence and set aside the order through which he was set ex parte. Any sincere person would have placed his version before the Court in response to the O.P. However, the petitioner did not want his wife and children to get an early adjudication before the Family Court and subjected them to harassment in a fashion worse than a cantankerous litigant.
11. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision and the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The Family Court shall permit the petitioner to defend himself, only after he pays the amount and in default, it shall be entitled to proceed further with the O.P. without such defence.