Madras High Court
T.Malathi @ Hepsiba Malathi vs S.Rajbarath on 15 October, 2015
Author: M.Duraiswamy
Bench: M.Duraiswamy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.10.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
C.R.P(MD)No.2279 of 2015
and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
T.Malathi @ Hepsiba Malathi
.. Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent
-vs-
S.Rajbarath
.. Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the order of rejection dated 19.08.2015 passed
in an unnumbered I.A.No......... of 2015 in I.D.O.P.No.99 of 2015 on the file
of the Family Court, Tirunelveli.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Sundar
^For Respondent :
:ORDER
Challenging the order passed in an unnumbered application in I.A.No......... of 2015 in I.D.O.P.No.99 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli, the petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent, has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.
3. The respondent filed I.D.O.P.No.99 of 2015 for divorce. In the said original petition, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.......... of 2015 to find out whether the respondent/husband is fit to lead a matrimonial life and to undergo medical test with regard to paranoid schizophrenia in the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital by a qualified Doctor. The revision petitioner presented the application before the Family Court, Tirunelveli on 19.08.2015 and the Family Court rejected the application stating that the application is unwarranted. The application was rejected on the very same day ie., on 19.08.2015.
4. Mr.S.S.Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the Family Court had rejected the application even without ordering notice to the respondent herein and without hearing the revision petitioner. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the application has been rejected by a detailed order passed by the trial Court, even without numbering the application.
5. This Court had repeatedly held that the Courts below while passing orders in an application should number the application and pass a detailed order.
6. In the case on hand, on a perusal of the order passed by the Family Court, Tirunelveli it is clear that the application was rejected by the Family Court even without numbering the application. The Family Court has not stated that the application is not maintainable. The Family Court has stated that the application is unwarranted and rejected the application.
7. That being the case, the Family Court should have numbered the application and passed detailed order. In these circumstances, the order passed in an unnumbered I.A.No......... of 2015 in I.D.O.P.No.99 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli is liable to be set aside and the matter should be heard and decided afresh by the Family Court, Tirunelveli.
8. Accordingly, the order passed in an unnumbered application in I.A.No......... of 2015 in I.D.O.P.No.99 of 2015 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court, Tirunelveli and on receipt of the copy of the order, the Family Court, Tirunelveli is directed to number the application and decide the application on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the other side and also after hearing both sides.
9. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
To The Family Court, Tirunelveli..