A.K.Abinesh vs M.Deepa
2021 Latest Caselaw 11449 Mad

                                                                               C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         Dated : 07.06.2021

                                                            CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                             C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021 and
                                              C.M.P.Nos.4748 and 4750 of 2021

                     A.K.Abinesh                                ... Petitioner in both the Petitions

                                                                Vs.

                     M.Deepa                                   ... Respondent in both the petitions

Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of Civil

Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 17.12.2020

passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem in I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of

2020 in C.M.A.Nos.18 and 19 of 2020 respectively.

                                        For Petitioner          : Mr.L.Mouli

                                                  COMMON ORDER

Since the issues involved in both the petitions are one and the same,

they are taken up together and a common order is passed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

2. The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section

115 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated

17.12.2020 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem in

I.A.Nos. 2 & 3 of 2020 in C.M.A.Nos.18 and 19 of 2020 respectively.

3. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Initially,

H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner / husband on 19.07.2016

under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act praying to dissolve the

marriage that held on 20.05.2015 and to grant divorce. In consequence,

H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2016 was filed by the respondent / wife on 07.09.2016

under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking to pass a decree of

restitution of conjugal rights on the strength of the marriage held between

the petitioner and the respondent on 20.05.2015. Both the parties filed

their respective counter to the petitions. Upon hearing the submissions and

taking note of the averments on either side, the trial court had set aside the

petition filed by the petitioner and allowed the petition filed by the

respondent.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner / husband had filed an appeal in

C.M.A.No.18 of 2020 under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act r/w Order 41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure code to set aside the fair and decreetal order

passed in H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2018 [H.M.O.P.No.61 of 2016] on the file of

Subordinate Judge, Omalur dated 05.02.2020 and the petitioner had also

filed C.M.A.No.19 of 2020 under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act r/w

Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure code seeking to set aside the fair

and decreetal order passed in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018 dated 05.02.2020.

5. Pending appeals, I.A.No.2 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner

under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to

order amendment of the counter filed by the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.86 of

2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Omalur. That apart, I.A.No.3 of

2020 was also filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section

151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to order amendment in the petition

filed by the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the

Subordinate Judge, Omalur. Resisting the same, counter affidavits were

filed by the respondent stating that the proposed amendment will definitely

change and alter the root of the proceedings and it will cause prejudice to

the respondent herein. For ready reference, the proposed amendments

are extracted hereunder:-

1. In paragraph 9 of the main petition in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

on the file of the subordinate Judge, Omalur, in the fourth sentence delete the following words:

'fhuzk; vd;dbtd;why; vjph;kDjhuUf;F gpwe;Js;s FHe;ij kDjhuUf;F gpwf;ftpy;iy/

2. In the tenth paragraph in the sixth sentence delete the following:-

mjd; gpdg; [ Rkhh; xU khjk; kDjhuUld; kDjhuh; tPlo; y; ,Ue;j vjph;kDjhuh; kDjhuiu jhk;gj;jpaj;jpw;f;F xj;Jf;bfhs;stpy;iy. jw;nghJ cwt[ bfhs;tjpy; jdf;F tpUg;gk; ,y;iy vd;W kDjhuUld; cwt[ bfhs;tij kWj;J te;jhh;/

3. In paragraph eleven of H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Omalur in the second sentence delete the entire second sentence and third and fourth sentence of the same paragraph.

4. In the thirteenth paragraph of H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Omalur in the first sentence delete the following:

vjph;kDjhuh; ntbwhU Mqld; fs;sj;bjhlh;g[ itj;J bfhz;L mth; Kykhf FHe;ij bgw;W bfhz;L jw;nghJ kDjhuUld; nrh;e;J thH KoahJ vd;W kWj;jk;.

5. In the cause of action paragraph of the H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Omalur delete the following that comes after the words: 'mtuJ je;ija[k; vjph;kDjhuhpd; rnfhjh;fs; moj;j rkaj;jpYk; vjph;kDjhuh; ntW Mqld; cwt[ bfhz;L fh;g;gkhd rkaj;jpYk;' Both the I.As filed by the petitioner were dismissed. Challenging the same,

the petitioner is before this Court by way the present Civil Revision

Petitions.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the court

below failed to consider Order 6 Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code, which

states that the court may at any stage of the proceedings order to struck

out or amend any matter in any pleadings, which may be unnecessary,

scandalous vexatious. Further, the lower court failed to consider the

affidavit filed by the petitioner giving reasons and circumstances for stating

certain necessary allegations against the respondent, therefore, the same

can be struck out.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention

relied on the following orders passed by this Court:

(i) C.R.P.No.3015 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 dated 26.08.2014

[E.K.Palanisamy Vs. Manonmani and Others].

(ii) K.Shamsuddin Vs. K.Chellappan reported in 1998(2) MLJ 99

(iii) Church of South India Trust Vs. Kovil Pillai and Others reported

in 2007(5) CTC 595.

(iv) Soundararajan and another Vs. Vijayalakshmi and Others in

C.R.P.(PD) No.4730 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

documents placed on record carefully.

9. From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner

herein had filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018 seeking for a divorce

of the marriage with the respondent, which took place on 20.05.2015, on

the ground that while the petitioner and the respondent were living in the

petitioner's house, at jupital night, the petitioner was shocked with the act

of the respondent, as she did not allow the petitioner to have a physical

relationship stating that she did not like the petitioner and she had physical

relationship only as per the dates / timetable given by her brother stating

that only at that point of time, they should have physical relationship. That

apart, the respondent also did not like to bear a child and often she used to

visit her parents house and stay there and every time, she insisted for a

separate house away from the petitioner's parents' place.

10. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent is a

qualified Doctor and she proceeded for a training in Chennai, after the

marriage took place and the petitioner had let her in the training centre and

she had claimed that she was staying with a lady, viz., girl friend and she

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

did not disclose at any point of time that she had a girl friend. After training,

her brother only brought her back to Dharmapuri and after coming back to

Dharmapuri also, she did not have any physical relationship with the

petitioner. Thereafter, she fought with the petitioner and went back to her

parents house. Only after one month, it came to the knowledge of the

petitioner that the respondent was pregnant and was shocked to hear the

same because when the respondent went to Chennai for training, she had

stayed with some man [former lover] and only due to the same, she

became pregnant. However, the respondent had stated that the petitioner

is the father of the child, but the petitioner does not have any connection at

all to the pregnancy.

11. It is to be noted that the respondent herein had filed a petition

under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and Section 151 of Civil Procedure

Code in H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2018 denying all the averments and prayed for

passing a decree of restitution of conjugal rights between them. She has

also stated that she was made to work as a servant maid and was

subjected to harassment and cruelty and torture by the petitioner's family.

Moreover, as a dutiful wife, the respondent was carrying on the happy

marital life with the petitioner. Further, the respondent denied that they did

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

not have any physical relationship. During the pregnancy of third month,

the petitioner as well as the respondent proceeded for a Doctor check up

and the reports received from the hospital would prove that the petitioner

is the father of the child. She also further submitted that she had a

bleeding at the time of pregnancy and had to take a immediate steps for

arresting the bleeding and she had no other option except to come to the

parental house due to the health condition. Even after the male child was

born, the petitioner nor his parents came up to see the newly born child

and no baby shower function was conducted and prayed for restitution of

conjugal rights.

12. Contradicting the averments of the respondent, a counter

affidavit was filed by the petitioner herein in H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2018. The

petitioner and the respondent had differences of opinion, the same is

evident from the allegations levelled against the parties. A detailed

common decree and Judgment has been passed by the court below,

wherein the H.M.O.P. Filed by the petitioner / husband was dismissed and

the H.M.O.P. Filed by the respondent / wife was allowed on the ground

that both the parties should restart their life.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

13. After the said order, the petitioner herein had filed appeals before

the Subordinate Judge, Omalur in C.M.A.Nos.18 and 19 of 2020, in the

said appeals, the petitioner has raised various grounds and he has filed

I.A.No.2 of 2020 wherein he sought for amending the counter filed in

H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2018 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Omalur on the

ground that there are certain unnecessary and irrelevant statement made

in the counter filed by the petitioner and this would foist his case and the

same need not be on record and the counter has to be amended so as to

strike off the pleadings made in his counter. As the respondent / wife has

gone out of the house after quarreling with the petitioner and scolding his

age old parents, he got vexed and he was out of control of his conscious

mind for some time and because of the same, while preparing

H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2018, certain irrelevant and incorrect particulars were

pleaded and now that he realised that those averments are without any

basis and only because of the said fact, it has happened and even in the

counter in H.M.O.P.No. 86 of 2018, the averments were similarly copied

and he does not want the sentence to be remained, which are detailed in

the petition and pleaded to remove the same by way of amendment, since

the same are unwanted averments, due to which, the petitioner was put to

very great mental agony and hardship.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

14. It is seen from the counter filed by the petitioner / husband that

while adducing evidence, the petitioner was conscious in his mind and had

control over the word stated in the counter and now, the petitioner is

seeking for amending the same at belated stage and the same cannot be

sustained on the ground that based on the averments and evidence given

on the said amendments, a detailed judgment and decree was passed by

the court below and the averment once stated by the petitioner and

evidence been deposed on the said proceedings, the same cannot be

removed at this stage by way of an amendment.

15. It is also seen that the petitioner's averments would definitely

degrade the respondent / wife's character and morality of the wife. It is

further seen that the respondent / wife would have acquired lot of mental

stress due to the false allegation stated in the counter by the petitioner and

the proposed amendment will change the very root of the matter and

definitely, it would cause prejudice on the respondent's stand. Further,

only to get a divorce from the respondent, the petitioner has sought for

amendment at this belated stage, therefore, it cannot be acceptable.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

16. Further, it could seen from the averments, that the marriage had

taken place on 20.05.2015 and after that, in the year 2015, June Month,

the petitioner has gone for a training and returned back on 27.06.2015. As

it could be seen that the marriage is taken place on 25.05.2015 and after

two months of marriage, the respondent had proceeded for training for a

period of three days and after the said training, the respondent has

returned to her parents house, which is also the averment made by the

petitioner herein. Further, after the said pregnancy, the petitioner and the

respondent have proceeded to Adi Scan and Lab centre, Dharmapuri and

both of them were aware of the scan report, which is also marked as

Ex.R.21. According to the said document, on 15.10.2015, the respondent

had taken a scan and in the said report, it is seen that the last

menstruation period as 27.08.2015 [by dates 7 weeks 0 days]. Accordingly,

the delivery of the baby was marked as 02.06.2016. As the petitioner has

proceeded to the said training in the month of June and her last menstrual

period being 27.08.2015, i.e, two months after the training period, the same

would show that the pleadings made by the petitioner that he is not the

father of the child is completely false. Only upon the said detailed

observation, the court below has passed the fair and decreetal order and

subsequently, the petitioner had come out with the applications stating that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

all these averments have to be deleted on the ground that the petitioner

was in the confused state of mind etc., cannot be accepted. The said

allegations having been affected a person's [viz., the respondent / wife]

liberty and the character of the wife has been degraded, the trial court has

rightly not accepted the petitioner's case and dismissed the petitions.

17. The petitioner has preferred appeals under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC

before the appellate Court and if the applications are permitted to be

allowed to strike out the pleadings, the entire character of the Judgment

and decree passed by the court below would be altered and definitely

prejudice would be caused to the respondent / wife and the petitioner's

claim that no prejudice would be caused to the wife is not accepted and

this Court is of the view that the petitions are not maintainable and there is

no error in the Judgment and Decree passed by the court below in

rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner. When the petitioner has not

established his case and only after due negligence, he has filed the

petitions and now, he cannot come and plead that he was out of mind and

in confused state etc., which cannot be accepted and permitted. Once the

petitioner has gone to such a extent that the child was not born to him and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

now coming and trying to plead for striking out the same, is not at all

convinceable and acceptable one.

In view of the above, the order passed by the court below in

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 in C.M.A.Nos.18 and 19 of 2020 is confirmed and

the present Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

.06.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking /Non-Speaking Order

To

1. The Principal District Judge, Salem

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,

ssd

C.R.P.Nos.554 and 555 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.4748 and 4750 of 2021

.06.2021

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