Madras High Court
T.Sivasubramani vs S.V.Priya Karunyaa on 19 August, 2024
C.R.P. (PD) No.3184 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.3184 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.17035 of 2024
T.Sivasubramani .. Petitioner
Versus
S.V.Priya Karunyaa .. Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the order dated 25.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.18 of 2024 in
O.P.No.743 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Principal Family Court,
Chennai.
For the Petitioner : Mr.Suchit Anant Palande
For the Respondent : Mr.Arvind Subramaniam
for Ms.Lavanyavathi
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order dated 25.07.2024
passed by the learned II Additional Principal Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.18 of
2024 in O.P.No.743 of 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. O.P.No.743 of 2023 had been presented seeking for a declaration
that the marriage which took place on 30.10.2022 between the petitioner and
the respondent is voidable, on account of non-consummation of marriage and
on account of the fact that the consent of the wife had been taken under
vitiating circumstances.
3. On service of summons, the respondent entered appearance and
filed a detailed counter to the said petition. Thereafter, the parties went for trial.
In the meantime, the husband had presented O.P.No.2346 of 2023 seeking for
restitution of conjugal rights. By consent O.P.Nos.743 of 2023 and 2346 of
2023 were tried together. It is accepted by both the learned counsels that the
evidence has been completed and the matters were now listed for arguments.
4. At that stage, the respondent-wife took out an application seeking
to amend the provision of law alone, from Section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (c)to
Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short 'the Act'). This
application was received as I.A.No.18 of 2024. The learned Judge ordered
notice in the application and the respondent – husband filed a detailed counter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Thereafter, the learned Judge allowed the application by the impugned order
dated 25.07.2024 stating that no prejudice would be caused to the parties, by
amending the provision of law, in the prayer portion. He further left it open to
the Civil Revision Petitioner – husband to file an additional counter or
additional proof affidavit, if he so desires. Hence, the present Civil Revision
Petition.
5. Heard, Mr.Suchit Anant Palande, for the Civil Revision Petitioner
and Mr.Aravind Subramaniam for the respondent.
6. At the very outset, Mr.Arvind Subramaniam, in clear and
categorical terms, submits that his client does not intend to introduce any new
facts in the divorce petition. He would state all that the respondent-wife seeks
for is to amend the provision of law in the prayer portion.
7. Mr.Suchit Anant Palande would state that the husband went to
trial on the basis of nullity and today, the wife cannot turn around the present
petition on the ground of cruelty. He would add that 69 hearings have already
gone by and when the entire evidence has been completed, the wife has taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
out this application for amendment. He would rely upon the following
Judgments,
(i) of this Court in K.Sekar Vs. A.Mageshwari (C.R.P. (PD)
No.1007 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021,
(ii) of the High Court of Bombay in Vaishali Shrikant Arane Vs.
Shrikant Pandir Arane (2021 SCC OnLine Bom 5026,
(iii)of the High Court for the states of Punjab and Haryana in Varun
Singla Vs. Teena (CR No.1706 of 2016 dated 18.05.2017)
He would state that the application having been filed at the fag end of
the litigation does not deserve any consideration.
8. Per contra, Mr.Arvind Subramaniam would state that no new facts
having been introduced in the amendment petition and it does not change the
frame of the suit. Therefore, he would plead that the revision be dismissed.
9. I have carefully analysed the submissions of both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The argument of Mr.Suchit Anant Palande that Section 12 of the
Act, presupposes the absence of a marriage whereas, Section 13 of the very
same Act presupposes the existence of marriage. Therefore, change in the
provision of law would affect the case, which requires consideration.
11. Under Section 12, it is not the case where the petitioner refuses to
accept the factum of marriage, but would plead that the marriage that has been
entered into between the parties is voidable one. Even under Section 13 of the
Act, the marriage is accepted but a plea of default on the part of the opposing
party is raised and if accepted, the petitioner would plead that he or she is
entitled for divorce.
12. The submissions of Mr.Suchit Anant Palande that Section 12
does not accept marriage and Section 13 does, is not acceptable, since in both
the cases, the factum of marriage is accepted but the circumstances that the
petitioner would have to prove are different.
13. In so far as the present case is concerned, all that is sought to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
changed is the provision of law alone. That is why, I started of the Judgment
recording the statement of Mr.Arvind Subramaniam that he will not introduce
any new facts in the petition. A mistake in the provision of law can always be
corrected even at an appellate stage. This is not because the party is aware of
the provision. The party informs the counsel about the facts and it is finally the
counsel, who drafts the petition, who gives the appropriate provision of law. If
a mistake is committed in the provision of law, it is always capable of
correction.
14. It is here that I have to discuss the precedents that has been cited
by Mr.Suchit Anant Palande. With respect to the first of the three Judgments, it
was not a correction of mere provision of law, but certain new facts were
sought to be introduced in the Varun Singla's case (cited supra). An
amendment application was taken out seeking for amendment of the petition by
introduction of new facts after the evidence had commenced. Hence, it was
rejected.
15. Similarly, in K.Sekar's case (cited supra) a petition had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
filed on the grounds of nullity and thereafter, the husband wanted to bring on
record new facts regarding the complaint given by the wife to the police
officials and the District Social Welfare Protection Officer and similarly in
Vaishali Shrikant Arane' case (cited supra), the wife raised a plea that the
husband was sexually impotent, for the first time, in the amendment petition.
By that time, the petition has been filed, cross examination of the petitioner had
been concluded, it was under those circumstances, the learned Judge had found
that new plea should not be permitted, because, if they were so permitted, it
will put the respondent prejudice, including sending him for some medical
examination.
16. In the facts before me, none of these issues arise. It is a simple
amendment of a provision of law. The petitioner would still have to prove the
facts pleaded before the Family Court and that on the basis of the averments
made in the petition a case of cruelty is made out. In case, the averments are
proved and the Court is satisfied, the decree of divorce would follow otherwise
it would end in a dismissal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. Mr.Suchit Anant Palande, at this stage would submit that he had
cross examined the respondent-wife at length and therefore, he would be put to
prejudice, by the change in the provision of law.
18. I am not willing to accept this submission, because cross
examination is done on the facts presented before the Court and not on the
basis of law. All points failing, I am not in a position to come to the rescue of
Mr.Suchit Anant Palande's client.
19. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.08.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet:Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Jer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The II Additional Principal Judge
II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.,
Jer
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.3184 of 2024
19.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
