Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in
A.S.No.197 of 2021
and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28.01.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A.S.Nos.197 of 2021
and
C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021
and
C.M.P.Nos.9303 and 10544 of 2021
Mr.Ravishankar, S/o Ramani .. Appellant in both the appeals
Vs.
Mrs.Pavithra, D/o Srinivasa Raja .. Respondent in both the appeals
Appeal Suit (First Appeal) filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2021 in O.S.No.101 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the order and decretal order dated 08.01.2021 in O.P.No.928 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.
For appellant : Mr.A.D.Janarthanan in both the appeals For respondent: Mrs.R.Maheshwari in both the appeals Page No.1/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT (The Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.Raja, J) These appeals are filed by Mr.Ravishankar as against the common order, dated 08.01.2021 passed in O.P.No.928 of 2020 and O.S.No.101 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.
2. The appellant/R.Ravishankar (husband) filed O.P.No.928 of 2020 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, whereas, the respondent/S.Pavithra (wife) filed O.S.No.101 of 2020 for the following reliefs: (i) declaring that the marriage registrations falsely made between the appellant (defendant) and the respondent (plaintiff) on 15.06.2017 before the Registrar of Marriage, Chennai North, Joint-I, Chennai- 600 001 bearing Serial No.569 of 2017, dated 15.06.2017, as null and void; (ii) declaring that the marriage registration falsely made between the plaintiff and the defendant, dated 28.06.2018 before the Registrar General of Birth, Deaths and Marriages, Chennai-600 028, bearing M.No.CMR/Inspector General of Registration/1879/2018, dated 28.06.2018, as null and void; (iii) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men and their agents not to interfere in the life of the plaintiff, her family members, her relations and to her family institutions in any way; (iv) to grant permanent injunction against Page No.2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 the defendant, their men and their agents restraining them not to make any communication or interview or publish in any form in any press or social media or in any form and not to use the name of the plaintiff for any purpose of humiliating the life of the plaintiff and (v) to direct the defendant to pay the costs.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband submitted that the respondent-Pavithra, who was known to the appellant for ten years, and during this long period of ten years of love affair, she expressed her love and the appellant also reciprocated the same. Resultantly, they decided to marry. Finally, the marriage was solemnised on 24.04.2017 at JRB Mini Party Hall, No.86, Moore Street, George Town, Chennai-600 001 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies, and on 15.06.2017, the marriage was registered at Chennai North Joint-I in Marriage Sl.No.569/2017. Thereafter, the respondent/wife went to Australia to pursue her studies and she also asked the appellant to come to Australia to settle down there.
4. It is also the case of the appellant that the marriage was registered as per Australian visa process on 25.10.2018 and thereafter, the appellant was not permitted to contact the respondent by her family members. Therefore, the appellant filed H.C.P.No.12 of 2020 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the second Page No.3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 respondent therein to produce the appellant's wife Pavithra, daughter of Srinivasaraj from the illegal custody of the third respondent therein and to set her at liberty.
5. When the abovesaid H.C.P. was taken up for hearing, the Inspector of Police, Neelankarai Police Station, Chennai filed a status report. In the status report, the Inspector of Police stated that the appellant gave a petition through Registered Post to the Inspector of Police, J.8 Neelankarai Police Station, stating that he married the detenue-Pavithra, aged about 22 years on 15.06.2017 and the marriage was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, North Joint-I, Chennai, vide Reg.No.SI 569/2017. This marriage was known to the parents of the appellant and after their marriage, both were staying in their parents' house. This information was also given to the detenue's parents on 20.12.2019. Knowing this, the detenue's parents were seeking alliance for her and that was also informed to the appellant over phone by the detenue and hence, he has given the complaint, and based on the complaint, C.S.R.No.657 of 2019 was assigned by the Inspector of Police on 25.12.2019 at about 20 hours and he had taken up the petition for enquiry. During the course of enquiry, when the Inspector of Police went to the appellant's house at Palavakkam on 15.01.2020 and as the door was locked, he went to the detenue's house at Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai and their door was also locked. Therefore, he conducted enquiry Page No.4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 with several other persons, namely Venkatesan -- uncle of the detenue, Latha -- wife of Venkatesan and Vishnu Shankar - cousin brother of the detenue. They informed that the detenue went to Australia to pursue her higher studies in Food Technology and their parents went to Australia for convocation of their daughter. They also informed that the parents of the detenue were about to open a branch of Hotel Adyar Ananda Bhavan in New Washington on 18.01.2020, for which, the entire family went to Australia and in turn, they were going to Washington. This was verified through Immigration Department, which was also found to be correct. The status report further states that the Inspector of Police collected the VISA copies from the Immigration authorities, Passport copies and the other relevant documents, which were all found to be correct. Finally, the investigation revealed that the detenue and her parents were having return ticket from Chicago to Doha on 08.02.2020, and 09.02.2020 from Doha to Chennai Airport and on 09.02.2020 and 10.02.2020, the Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the witnesses. The Inspector of Police further conducted enquiry, from which it came to know that the marriage was registered on 15.06.2017 between the appellant and the detenue as per the Hindu Marriage Act. Since the marriage invitation to the Registrar at the time of their marriage, has mentioned the place of marriage as JRB Mini Party Hall, No.86, Moore Street, George Town, Chennai-600 001, on further verification, the Inspector of Police Page No.5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 came to know that there is no such marriage hall in the given address. The status report further states that their marriage was performed two times, one as per the Hindu Marriage Act, on 15.06.2017 and the other as per the Christian Marriage Act, on 25.10.2018. Taking on record the report of the Inspector of Police, this Court, in its order, dated 12.02.2020 in H.C.P.No.12 of 2020, directed production of the detenue and on her production before this Court, she also expressed her desire not to go with the appellant. Therefore, this Court, recorded in the order itself that the detenue herself was not willing to go along with the appellant, and closed the HCP accordingly. Subsequently, the appellant was not permitted to see the respondent and therefore, he has filed O.P.No.928 of 2020 before the trial Court for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas the respondent has filed O.S.No.101 of 2020 before the same Court for declaration that the alleged marriage registration made on 15.06.2017 and 28.06.2018 are null and void and for permanent injunction. Although the appellant was able to produce acceptable evidence that the appellant and the respondent solemnised their marriage in the manner known to law and after their marriage was solemnised, the respondent, at their compulsion and force mounted on her, again refused to live with the appellant. The trial Court, by impugned judgment dated 08.01.2021, disbelieving the case of the appellant, dismissed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and granted the decree for annulment of Page No.6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 marriage, as prayed for by the respondent, holding that the respondent-Pavithra has proved that the appellant-Ravishankar created two false marriage certificate for black-mailing her for getting money and that the respondent also as R.W.1 deposed that the appellant received money from her and that the said Ravishankar made life threat to her and to the family members, threatening that he would spoil her image by using the press and media, if she refused to come with the appellant. These findings, it was pleaded, are without any evidence, the reason being when there was a marriage solemnised between them at Moore Street at Parrys Corner, Chennai, and the marriage was also registered in the said place, the learned trial Judge wrongly taking up one other registration certificate entertaining the suspicion that there cannot be two registration certificates for one marriage, wrongly dismissed the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights, which is unfair and not justified and hence, the same is liable to be interfered with and finally, this Court may order the respondent to restore the matrimonial life by living together, he pleaded.
6. Opposing the above prayer, the learned counsel for the respondent heavily argued that when the respondent (wife) produced Exs.R-1 and R-2, the alleged marriage certificates, and she was able to substantiate that they are fake marriage registration certificates, because, he was forced by the life threat to sign in some blank papers by the appellant and his men, the impugned order Page No.7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 cannot be found fault with. When it was alleged to be registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009, the Registrar, when scrutinising the documents produced along with the memorandum, wrongly registered it. Similarly, when Ex.R-2 is also alleged to be registered on 15.06.2017, it was found that the parties were projected as Christians, when the names of the parties Ravishankar and Pavithra are clearly self-explanatory and that they belong to Hindu religion, it is not known as to how and on what basis, the marriage certificate registered as Christian under the Christian Marriage Act, can be accepted, because it was a falsehood. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the case of the appellant holding that the marriage alleged to have taken place , is null and void.
7. Secondly, when the appellant also filed H.C.P. before this Court, a detailed status report was filed by the Inspector of Police of Neelankarai, wherein the Inspector of Police also has clearly mentioned that there cannot be two marriage certificates, one registered under the Christian Marriage Act and the other registered under the Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore, when the parties are Hindu, claiming that they have registered their marriage under the Christian Marriage Act, not only creates a doubt, but also disprove their claim that they have got their marriage solemnised. Moreover, when the detenue was produced before this Court on 12.02.2020 in the said H.C.P., as argued by the learned Page No.8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 counsel for the appellant, the respondent coming to this Court on attaining majority, chose to live with her parents, and therefore, she said that she was not willing to go with the appellant for the simple reason that he was all the time putting threat on her life. Therefore, when the respondent, who has attained majority and who is a major today, has expressed her desire on 12.02.2020 before this Court that she is no more interested to see him or no more interested to hear that there was a marriage and consequently, wanted to live with her parents, stating that no such marriage took place, and the trial Court rightly accepting the suit, has decreed, holding that the alleged marriages that took place, are null and void.
8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions, frames the following questions for consideration in these appeals:
(i) Was there a valid marriage solemnised between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife ?, and
(ii) Whether the appellant/husband, after suffering the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by this Court in H.C.P.No.12 of 2020, can, once again re- agitate the same issue by resorting to the present appeals ?
9. Question No.1: Was there a valid marriage solemnised between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife ?
Page No.9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 It is the case of the appellant/husband that he married the respondent on 15.06.2017. When the appellant moved H.C.P.No.12 of 2020 before this Court, seeking issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the second respondent therein (Inspector of Police, J-8 Neelankarai Police Station, Chennai) to produce the respondent/Pavithra from the illegal custody of the third respondent therein (Srinivasaraja), in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the said H.C.P., he has stated that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 15.06.2017, but contrary to that, in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, he has stated that the marriage was solemnised on 24.04.2017. When the sworn-affidavit had been filed by the appellant (husband) before this Court in the said H.C.P., the same will be binding on all parties to the proceedings. While so, as rightly held by the Family Court, the appellant cannot take a different stand that the marriage was solemnised on 24.04.2017. Therefore, the Family Court, seeing the conduct of the appellant/husband that he has been taking double-stand even in the marriage date, rightly disbelieved that no such marriage has taken place.
10. Yet another inconsistent stand taken by the appellant/husband shows that he has produced Ex.R-2 (marriage registration extract) to show that his marriage was solemnised at No.36, East Coovam River Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002, but, this stand has been held by the Family Court as false Page No.10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 registration, because, the solemnisation of the marriage mentioned in Ex.R-2 has not been pleaded by the appellant-Ravishankar in his petition filed in O.P.No.928 of 2020.
11. The third interesting aspect is that when both parties are Hindus, the second Registrar made false registration as if they are Christians, because, in Column No.4 of Ex.R-2, it is stated as "Christian", whereas, the parties herein are actually "Hindus", and even in Column No.7 of Ex.R-2, the appellant-Ravishankar has mentioned as "Bachelor" and "Spinster". Contrary to the same stand, in Column No.8, it is mentioned that the respondent-Pavithra is a house-wife. Therefore, the Family Court has rightly come to the conclusion that, in view of the various inconsistent statements, the case projected by the appellant-husband was an after-thought and unbelievable, because, even both the marriage registrations speak volumes about the factum of marriage. Therefore, a finding was rendered by the Family Court that the marriage was solemnised on 24.04.2017, was an utter falsehood, for the simple reason that in H.C.P.No.12 of 2020 filed before this Court earlier, the appellant/husband stated that the marriage was solemnised on 15.06.2017, whereas, in the petition in O.P.No.928 of 2020 filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appellant had taken a different stand that the marriage was solemnised on 24.04.2017, and therefore, the alleged marriage said to have Page No.11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 taken place at the instance of the appellant, was only due to black-mailing tactics and life threat posed to the respondent-wife and her family members, and therefore, the said marriage cannot be a valid marriage. Accordingly, the first question is answered against the appellant/husband.
12. Question No.(ii): Whether the appellant/husband, after suffering the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by this Court in H.C.P.No.12 of 2020, can, once again re-agitate the same issue by resorting to the present appeals?
When the appellant/husband filed H.C.P.No.12 of 2020 before this Court for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the second respondent therein (Inspector of Police, J-8 Neelankarai Police Station, Chennai) to produce the respondent/Pavithra from the illegal custody of the third respondent therein (Srinivasaraja), this Court, in the order dated 12.02.2020 passed in this said H.C.P., observed as follows:
"3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the detenue is produced and she appeared along with her parents. The second respondent-Police has filed status report in detail. On enquiry, the detenue expressed her unwillingness to go along with the petitioner. Further, she denied that only due to pressure given by their parents, she is refused to go along with him.
4. Be that as it may. The scope of the Habeas Page No.12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 Corpus Petition is very limited and it can be entertained only when there is illegal detention of a detenu(e). In this case, when the detenue herself is not willing to go along with the petitioner, this Court has no other option except to close this petition. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed, as there is no illegal detention of the detenue. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law before appropriate Court."
13. From the above order passed by this Court, it is clear that the Inspector of Police (second respondent in the said H.C.P) was directed to produce the detenue/Pavithra (respondent herein) and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the respondent (wife) appeared along with her parents before this Court. On enquiry, the second respondent therein (Inspector of Police) filed status report in detail. Thus, from the above order passed in the said H.C.P., it is clear that after enquiry was held by this Court in the said H.C.P., the detenue (respondent herein) expressed her unwillingness to go along with the appellant (husband), because, she denied that only due to the pressure given by their parents, she refused to go along with the appellant/husband. For the said reason, this Court closed the said H.C.P. on 12.02.2020, stating that she was not willing to go along with the appellant/husband. Further, procuring fake Page No.13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 marriage certificate and filing a false affidavit before the Court below, in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, is unacceptable. Therefore, the second question is also answered against the appellant/husband.
14. When the appellant has claimed that his marriage with the respondent was solemnised on 15.06.2017, specifically mentioning in the HCP that the appellant married the respondent on 15.06.2017, but in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, namely in O.P.No.928 of 2020, he has mentioned that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 24.04.2017 at Moore Street, George Town (i.e. near, Parrys Corner), Chennai- 600 001, as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies. These two apparent and obvious contradictory statements clearly disprove the case of the appellant. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court also, in H.C.P.Nos.2767 of 2013 and 2141 of 2014, by order dated 17.10.2014 (S.Balakrishnan Pandiyan and another Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District and others), reported in 2014 (5) LW 207 = 2014 (7) MLJ 651 = MANU/TN/2068/2014, has clearly mentioned that any fabricated and concocted story of marriage (especially like the one in the case on hand in Moore Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai) taking place, cannot be accepted at all, because, some group of persons claiming to be Advocates, with fake registration, are indulging Page No.14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 in black-mailing practise for monetary purpose and innocent girls were forced to enter into unlawful contract, and deprecating such practise, this Court has disbelieved those marriages taking place (like that of the present case in Moore Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai). In the present case also, looking to the case of the appellant that when he claims that the marriage was solemnised at Moore Street, it goes against the said order passed by this Court in H.C.P.Nos.2767 of 2013 and 2141 of 2014. Therefore, the alleged marriage that had taken place at Moore Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai, is a false one.
15. Therefore, we have no hesitation to dismiss the appeals filed by the appellant-husband (Ravishankar) and confirm the findings and conclusions reached by the trial Court. Even after the order was passed by this Court in H.C.P.No.12 of 2020 (by order dated 12.02.2020) holding that there is no illegal detention of the respondent-wife (namely, the detenue-Pavithra), once again, the appellant-husband has filed the application for restitution of conjugal rights, by wasting the precious time of the Court, and therefore, we hereby impose costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), payable by the appellant/husband to the Madras High Court Advocates' Clerk Association, Madras High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
16. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, both the appeals fail Page No.15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 and they are dismissed with costs as stated above. Consequently, C.M.Ps. are closed.
(T.R.J) (D.B.C.J)
28.01.2022
Index: Yes
Speaking Order:Yes/no
cs
To
1. The Principal Judge, Fifth Additional Family Court, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. Page No.16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 T.RAJA, J and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J cs A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 Page No.17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Judgment dated 28.01.2022 in A.S.No.197 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.1673 of 2021 28.01.2022 Page No.18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis