Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The respondent in HMOP No. 706 of 2004 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai has filed this revision under Article 227 of The Constitution of India. The HMOP No. 706 of 2004 was filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights and for other reliefs.

2. The case of the respondent herein is that he married the revision petitioner on 15-03-1992 according to Hindu rites and customs in the presence of relatives and elders and the marriage function was held at the residence of the revision petitioner herein at Madras; that after the marriage, they lived together at Madras for three days; that on 18-03-1992, the respondent went to Addankivaripalam to attend his personal work, later, he came back to Madras on 19-03-1992; that the petitioner herein refused to live with him wi thout any reasons; that subsequently, both of them went to Addankivaripalam and after two days the revision petitioner came back to Madras; that the respondent waited for the petitioner, but she did not turn up, hence, he issued a notice on 08-08-1992 and the same was also received, but no reply was sent by her; that the respondent has filed similar Petitions under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 22-12-1994 as the dispute was settled mutually; that the petitioner and the respondent lived together as wife and husband continuously from 22-12-1994 to 17-01-2003; that on 18-01-2003, the respondent came to his native place where he met with an accident and stayed back and despite his notice dated 12-12-2003, she has not joined him, hence, he filed the present HMOP.

3. The trial court issued notice to the revision petitioner herein and she filed this revision petition praying to reject the above said HMOP.

4. The case of the revision petitioner is that she is an actress in Hindi movies, having lot of fans throughout India and they used to write letters to her; that the previous records shows that the respondent herein has filed similar case against Mrs. Priyanka Gandhi Gothra, daughter of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mrs. Jayapradha, a film actresscum-politician with an intention to gain cheap publicity in print and visual media; that after filing the said HMOP, the media has given wide publicity to him; that the averments relating to the alleged marriage, venue and the subsequent events were all false and imaginary and not on factual basis; that the petitioner was not aware of the respondent at all; that the trial court was used as a tool by the respondent herein for gaining cheap publicity; that the trial court, without application of mind issued notice to the revision petitioner to appear; that the trial court failed to even look into the documents filed by the respondent and mechanically issued notice to her; that the documents filed along with the HMOP are crystal clear that they are not genuine, cooked up for filing the present case; that in any event, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is unsustainable in Law.

8. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has made an endorsement in the bundle reporting 'no instructions'.

9. Mr. Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the respondent herein is in the habit of filing false cases against popular lady personalities; that it is evident that he filed more or less similar cases against them in which one case was dismissed and the case against another person is concerned, admittedly the Delhi Court dismissed it and punished the respondent herein; that the respondent has filed only cooked up xerox copy of the documents along with the HMOP; that the said documents, on its face seen that they were cooked up for the purpose of filing the vexatious HMOP knowing that the petitioner is a popular cine artist in India and such petition attract both visual and print media; that the petitioner has achieved the said object by making the Courts as a tool, which amounts to abuse of process of Court; that when this revision is taken up, the respondent deliberately failed to give instructions to his counsel; that if this type of vexatious case is allowed to be entertained, it would send wrong signal to the other persons, who are in the habit of gaining cheap popularity, knowing fully well that it will affect the reputation of others substantially and prayed for allowing this revision by rejecting the HMOP No. 712 of 2004 before the court below with exemplary costs and also prayed this Court to proceed against the respondent for contempt of Courts.

20. The averments in the HMOP No. 122 of 1994, which was filed by the respondent before the Sub-court, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh and the averments made in the present HMOP are also different. Though it is stated that a notice dated 18-06-1992 was issued by the respondent prior to filing of HMOP No. 122 of 1994 before the Sub-court, Tenali and the same is enclosed in the present HMOP, only the alleged office copy of the said notice has been enclosed, but the acknowledgment was not filed to prove the service on the petitioner. The reason for withdrawing similar relief sought for before the Sub-court, Tenali also not validly explained by the respondent. If, after dismissal of the HMOP No. 122 of 1994 as not pressed and thereafter parties allegedly lived together, the HMOP No. 706 of 2004 ought to have been supported by documents, but no document is furnished by the respondent before the trial court. It is the duty of the trial court that such averment is made that after withdrawing the earlier HMOP they lived together, it should have been cautious and insisted for production of the documents, but no such efforts were taken by it. When the defect is apparent on the face of the record of the plaint, the duty of the Court under Order VII Rule 7 CPC is to examine the plaint before issuing summons.