Madras High Court
G.Karunanidhi vs K.K.Gaayathri on 4 October, 2024
C.R.P.No.2077 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.2077 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.11121 of 2024
G.Karunanidhi ..Petitioner
Vs.
K.K.Gaayathri ..Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2024
further as per order amended in I.A.No.9 of 2024 dated 24.04.2024
passed by the the learned II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai
in I.A.No.8 of 2023 in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in F.C.O.P.1817 of 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran
For Respondents : Mr.J.Rahul Jaganathan
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.R.P.No.2077 of 2024
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the
learned II Additional Principal Family Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.8 of
2023 in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.P.No.1817 of 2015 dated 11.03.2024.
2. I.A.No.8 of 2023 is an application to initiate proceedings under
Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and also to reject the
affidavit containing statement of assets and disabilities filed by the
respondent. FCOP.No.1817 of 2015 is an application filed by the wife
seeking for restitution of conjugal rights.
3. She pleads that she married the civil revision petitioner on
20.02.2011 at Tirupathi and set up their matrimonial home at
Saligramam in Chennai. Alleging that the civil revision petitioner -
husband had left her in lurch, she moved the family Court for the
aforesaid relief.
4. Summons was served on the respondent husband. He filed a
counter stating that he never married the respondent and the invitation
card and photo that has been produced by the wife are a result of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fabrication. He would state that the wife is a real estate broker and a close
friend of a politician. His plea is that she is projecting the case of
marriage in order to grab his vast movable and immovable properties.
5. Pending proceedings, the respondent took out an application in
I.A.No.4032 of 2018 seeking for an interim maintenance of Rs.2,50,000/-
per month. The petitioner filed a detailed counter opposing the said
application. The plea that there was no marriage between the petitioner
and the respondent was raised again. A defence was raised stating that
the alleged wife used to work in a cinema troupe and also used to do real
estate business. He pleaded in the petition that there is no relationship of
husband and wife between the petitioner and the respondent and the
interim maintenance petition is not maintainable and deserves to be
dismissed.
6. As declared by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha
reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 the respondent/ wife filed an affidavit of
assets and liabilities. Subsequently, I.A.No.4032 of 2018 was
renumbered as I.A.No.4 of 2022. In the said Interlocutory Application,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the civil revision petitioner filed an application to prosecute the
respondent for perjury under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and also sought for rejection of the affidavit of assets.
7. The learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that since the
respondent wife has a joint account along with the civil revision
petitioner, the petition deserves dismissal and accordingly dismissed it.
Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition.
8. Notice was ordered in this application on 22.05.2024.
Summons was served on the respondent and Mr.J.Rahul Jajannatahn,
learned counsel had entered appearance for the respondent.
9. The narration of the aforesaid facts would show that the plea of
the civil revision petitioner is that there is no matrimonial relationship
between the petitioner and the respondent. Unless and until this
jurisdictional fact is proved, the Family Court cannot seize jurisdiction
under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
10. If I were to concede to the plea of Mr.P.Vijendran that I.A.No.8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2023 has to be tried first and then the Interlocutory application for
maintenance and original petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights
later, then it would be a case of trial within a trial. My reading of the
Family Courts Act or the Hindu Marriage Act or the Code of Civil
Procedure does not permit successive trials within a trial.
11. Therefore, I put it to Mr.P.Vijendran and Mr.J.Rahul
Jagannathan that instead of prolonging the agony of the parties by letting
in evidence in Interlocutory Application first and in the Original Petition
later, both the application as well as Original Petition may be taken up
for final disposal. Both the learned counsel have no objection for the said
course of action.
12. In the light of the above discussion. This civil revision petition
is disposed of on the following lines:
1. The order passed by the learned Judge dated
11.03.2024 is set aside.
2. I.A.No.8 of 2023 will stand restored on to the file of
the II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.
3. The learned Judge shall take up I.A.No.4 of 2022 and
O.P.No.1817 of 2015 for disposal together.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The evidence in the Original Petition as well as in
Interlocutory Application will be recorded in common.
5. The learned Judge will hear the arguments in the
application and the Original Petition together and
pass a common judgment.
6. Depending upon the disposal of I.A.No.4 of 2022 and
O.P.No.1817 of 2015 the orders will be passed in
I.A.No.8 of 2023.
7. The learned Judge is requested to recollect that on
16.06.2023, this Court had given a direction to the II
Additional Family Court to Dispose of HMOP within a
period of six months.
8. Mr.J.Rahul Jagannathan, learned counsel submits that
he will file his proof affidavit on 16.10.2024 and this
undertaking is recorded. The Court shall open trial on
that date.
9. The learned Family Judge shall not grant unnecessary
adjournments either to the petitioner or to the
respondent and ensure that the proceedings are
disposed of within a period of six months from
16.10.2024.
10. A report shall be submitted to this Court in
compliance of the direction given herein above on or
before 21.04.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is
disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits
of the allegations made by the petitioner or the respondent. In fact, I
cannot go into the merits also, since the parties are yet to give evidence on
the alleged relationship between them. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.10.2024
dsa
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non-Speaking order
To
The Judge,
II Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Chennai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
dsa
04.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
