Madras High Court
Mr.Ravishankar vs Mrs.Pavithra on 28 January, 2022
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
