Madras High Court
G.Paul Sebasstian vs S.Gifta Kezhiya on 26 February, 2021
C.M.A. No.1890 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
C.M.A. No.1890 of 2015
and C.M.P. Nos.1318 & 1319 of 2018
G.Paul Sebasstian ... Appellant
-vs-
S.Gifta Kezhiya ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Indian
Divorce Act to set aside the judgment and decree passed in I.D.O.P.
No.140 of 2011 dated 17.06.2015 by the District Judge, Thiruvallur
and Thiruvallur District by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Kamadevan for
Mr.P.Ganesan
For Respondent : Mr.G.Thiyagarajan for
Mr.T.Ravi
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was made by T.RAJA,J.)
This appeal has been directed against the impugned decretal
order and judgment dated 17.06.2015 passed by the learned District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1890 of 2015
Judge, Thiruvallur in I.D.O.P. No.140 of 2011 dismissing the prayer of
the appellant husband for grant of divorce filed under Section 10(i)(x)
of the Indian Divorce Act and dissolving the marriage solemnised on
30.03.2008.
2.Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
husband, assailing the impugned findings and conclusion reached by
the District Judge, Thiruvallur, submitted that after solemnisation of
marriage between the appellant and the respondent on 30.03.2008 at
Samathana Jeba Veedu, Periyanayakanpalayam, Coimbatore, they
were blessed with a male child on 27.11.2009 and thereafter, the
appellant came to know that the respondent was a divorcee. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submitted that the respondent wife,
willfully and deliberately misled the appellant stating that she was a
spinster, got married him. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the appellant has taken us to the letter given by the Pastor
of the Church, who performed the marriage between them, wherein
the Pastor has mentioned that the respondent had suppressed the
facts of her marital status and about her earlier marriage and divorce
and she furnished the false and wrong details that she was a spinster.
Therefore, the marriage solemnised on 30.03.2008 between the
appellant and the respondent is liable to be dissolved as a nullity for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1890 of 2015
the reason that the respondent has played fraud for contracting the
marriage stating that she was a spinster though she was a divorcee.
3.Mr.G.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent wife, opposing the veracity and genuineness of the letter
given by the Pastor, stating that the respondent has given false and
wrong details that she was a spinster, argued that well before the
marriage, the respondent has disclosed the fact that she was a
divorcee and that the appellant was well aware of the previous
marriage. After contracting the marriage, the appellant, for the
reasons best known to him, made such allegations against the
respondent wife for the purpose of running away from the matrimonial
life. Considering these aspects, the District Court has proceeded with
the matter, on merits.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, placing on record
the additional documents filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil
Procedure Code, which were allowed to be marked by this Court on
08.02.2021, submitted that those documents have to be properly
considered by the District Court, Thiruvallur. Therefore, instead of
wasting the valuable and precious time of this Court, the matter be
remanded back to the District Court and while the fresh evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1890 of 2015
allowed to be taken on record, the appellant be permitted to raise
some additional grounds.
5.Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
respondent be permitted to file some additional documents and to
raise some additional grounds before the District Court.
6.Therefore, accepting the joint request made by both the
learned counsel, we are inclined to remand back the matter to the
District Court, Thiruvallur for the purpose of looking into the fresh
evidence placed before us under Order XLI Rule 27(2) of C.P.C. which
states that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by
an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.
7.Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the District Judge,
Thiruvallur is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District
Judge, Thiruvallur for considering the fresh evidence placed before us
under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. Both the learned counsel are
permitted to file additional documents and raise additional grounds, if
any.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1890 of 2015
8.Since the matter is pending from the year 2011 and the parties
are fighting endlessly, we direct the District Court, Thiruvallur to take
up the matter and give a disposal, on merits, preferably within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. Consequently, connected
C.M.Ps are closed. No costs.
(TRJ) (PRMJ)
26.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
vga
To
1.The District Judge, Thiruvallur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A. No.1890 of 2015
T.RAJA, J.
and
P.RAJAMANICKAM,J.
vga
C.M.A. No.1890 of 2015
and C.M.P. Nos.1318 & 1319 of 2018
26.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
