Madras High Court
R. Shyamala vs G. Ramkumar on 23 September, 2019
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
C.R.P(MD)No.922 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.R.P(MD)No.922 of 2019 and
CMP(MD).No. 5304 of 2019
R. Shyamala ... Petitioner
Vs.
G. Ramkumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India directing to number the unnumbered I.A
application in I.A.S.R.No. 1651 of 2019 in HMOP.No.995 of 2018 on
the file of the Family Court, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr. N. Ananthapadmanaban
For Respondents : Mr. V. Veerapandian
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P(MD)No.922 of 2019
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai to number the unnumbered Interlocutory application in I.A.S.R.No. 1651 of 2019 in HMOP.No.995 of 2018.
2. It is the case of revision petitioner that she has filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC r/w. Section 151 CPC, for rejection of the petition in HMOP.No.995 of 2018, on the ground that there was no marriage.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that there was no valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and hence, the question of restitution of conjugal rights does not arise. He would further submit that in order to prove the relationship the respondent has produced some photographs, but, that was taken when she had friendship with the respondent herein. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present application to reject the said HMOP, but, the same was returned as not maintainable without assigning any reason. 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P(MD)No.922 of 2019
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent has no objection for allowing the application and to number the same and in any event, the application may be decided on merits. He further contended that the revision petitioner and the respondent, subsequent to the marriage, have opened joint account in a Bank as husband and wife and they have also taken Insurance Policy. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner stoutly denied all this fact and he also denied the fact of living relationship. Whether the petitioner and the respondent have got married or not is a matter to be decided by the Court below.
5. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Court below should have numbered the Interlocutory Application filed by the revision petitioner. On the other hand, the Court below wrongly rejected as if the Interlocutory Application filed by the revision petitioner is not maintainable. The Court cannot pass such orders before numbering the petition. Therefore, this Court directs the Court below to number I.A.SR No.1651 of 2019 and decide the matter on merits. Further, this Court directs the Court 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P(MD)No.922 of 2019 below to dispose of the said application within three months from the date of service of notice on the other side. The presence of the revision petitioner before the Court below is dispensed with, until the disposal of the Interlocutory Application.
6. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.09.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
trp
Note : Registry is directed to return the original application after substituting a xerox copy of the same.
4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P(MD)No.922 of 2019 To The Family Court, Madurai.
5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P(MD)No.922 of 2019 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., trp C.R.P(MD)No.922 of 2019 and CMP(MD).No. 5304 of 2019 23.09.2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in