Rani vs The Commandant
2021 Latest Caselaw 9451 Mad

                                                                               CRP.PD.No.701 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 09.04.2021

                                                          CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               CRP.PD.No. 701 of 2018

                    Rani                                                           ... Petitioner

                                                           Vs.

                    The Commandant,
                    Vehicle Department Workshop,
                    EME, Avadi,
                    Chennai – 600 055.                                         ... Respondent

                    PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

                    Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated

                    08.03.2017 passed in I.A.No.767 of 2015 in O.S.No.555 of 2014 on the file

                    of the Principal District Munsif at Poonamallee and to punish the

                    respondent for violation of Court order.



                                         For Petitioner           : Mr.V.Manohar

                                         For Respondent           : Mr.S.Sathish Rajan




                    1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                 CRP.PD.No.701 of 2018



                                                        ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal

order passed in I.A.No.767 of 2015 in O.S.No.555 of 2014 dated

08.03.2017 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif,

Poonamallee, thereby dismissing the petition filed to arrest the respondent

herein.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the second

defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner for declaration to declare that the

marriage between the first defendant and her husband deceased Murugan as

null and void and also seeking mandatory injunction as against the

respondent herein not to disburse the terminal benefits, pension and other

benefits to the first defendant. The Court below granted interim injunction

as against the respondent not to disburse any terminal benefits to the first

defendant. The interim injunction was passed on 03.12.2014 and on

17.12.2014, the respondent entered appearance through his counsel.

Subsequently, the interim order was extended from time to time. When that

being so, the respondent disbursed part of the terminal benefits to the tune

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.701 of 2018

of Rs.1,21,510/- to the first defendant in the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner

filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure to

punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed by the

Trial Court.

3. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner was

married to one deceased Murugan and thereafter, she filed a petition for

divorce on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee. It was decreed by the

judgment and decree dated 20.12.2002 and thereby, divorce was granted to

the petitioner and her husband. Suppressing the said fact, the petitioner filed

the suit for declaration to declare that the marriage took place between the

first defendant viz., the second wife of the said deceased Murugan and the

said Murugan declared as null and void. The decree of divorce formed part

of the records maintained by the respondent herein. Further, on a perusal of

the counter affidavit of the respondent herein, it reveals that he received

only notice in the Interim Application and he did not receive any order in

I.A.No.1616 of 2014 and as such, he did not have knowledge about the

interim order passed by the trial Court. However, on a perusal of the decree

of divorce was granted between the petitioner and her husband, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.701 of 2018

respondent disbursed part of the terminal benefits to the first defendant.

Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that

the respondent did not disobey the order passed by the Court below and also

issued direction to the respondent herein. Therefore, this Court finds no

infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below.

4. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However,

the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

                                                                                          09.04.2021
                    Speaking/Non-speaking order
                    Index     : Yes/No
                    Internet : Yes/No
                    kv

                    To

1. The Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.701 of 2018

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

Kv

CRP.PD.No. 701 of 2018

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.PD.No.701 of 2018

09.04.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/