Madras High Court
A.Saravanan vs S.Monica on 24 September, 2024
C.R.P. No. 3841 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P. No. 3841 of 2024
and
C.M.P. No. 21073 of 2024
A.Saravanan ... Petitioner / Respondent
Vs.
S.Monica ... Respondent / Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to call for the records in H.M.O.P. No. 375 of 2021 on
the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alandur and strike off the same for
want of cause of action.
For Petitioner : Mr. C.P.Sivamohan
ORDER
This civil revision petition seeks to quash the H.M.O.P. No. 375 of 2021
on the file of the Subordinate Court at Tambaram. Prior to these proceedings,
O.P. No. 4301 of 2014 and O.P. No. 666 of 2015 were presented by the
respondent and the petitioner respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as wife
and husband.
3. It was the case of the wife that she never got into matrimony with the
husband as alleged by him on 30.06.2014 at Kandakottam Temple. Therefore,
pleading nullity, she presented O.P. No. 4301 of 2014. The husband presented
O.P. 666 of 2015 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. After common
trial, O.P. No. 4301 of 2014 was dismissed and O.P. No. 666 of 2015 came to
be decreed by way of judgment and decree of the learned IV Additional
Family Court at Chennai on 04.10.2018. Thereafter, the wife presented O.P.
No. 134 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Tambaram pleading
cruelty and desertion. The said proceeding, by virtue of an order of the learned
Principal District Judge at Kanchipuram, stood transferred and got re-
numbered on the file of the Sub-Court at Alandur as H.M.O.P. No. 375 of
2021. In this H.M.O.P., the wife accepts the marriage and would plead that her
parents and relatives went over to the husband and requested him to set up a
matrimonial home. The petition proceeds that the husband got enraged and
stated that he would never live with the petitioner and that he was angry with
her for having filed a petition against him. Aggrieved by the presentation of
this H.M.O.P., the husband is on revision before me.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Heard Mr. C.P.Sivamohan for the civil revision petitioner.
5. Mr. C.P.Sivamohan would argue that there is no cause of action in
this petition. He would plead that as the proceedings had reached a finality in
O.P. No. 4301 of 2014 and O.P. No. 666 of 2015, the present petition is an
abuse of process of law.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr. C.P.Sivamohan.
7. The wife, when she presented O.P. No. 4301 of 2014, took a stand
that the marriage, which took place on 30.06.2014, is a make-believe one and
that in fact, no marriage had taken place. Her plea was that the husband and
wife went to Kandakottam in order to pray to the deity and at that stage the
husband garlanded the wife and took some photographs and then, by coercion,
he had the marriage registered. This story was rejected by the Court on
04.10.2018. However, in the present petition, she would admit the marriage
and would plead that when attempts were made to set up a matrimonial home,
the husband rebuffed her parents, relatives and herself and and held out to her
that he would never set up a matrimonial home as she had filed a petition for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
nullity against him. This shows that the present petition in H.M.O.P. 375 of
2021 is predicated not only on grounds of cruelty but also desertion.
8. Mr. C.P.Sivamohan would contend that the reading of the petition
does not disclose the cause of action. Whether the husband in fact stated what
he is said to have stated in paragraph no.13, and whether those averments are
sufficient to make out the case for cruelty and desertion, are all matters for
trial. When the petition has certain allegations that the wife is willing to live
with her husband and the husband is not willing to take the wife into a
matrimonial home, then basic plea for desertion is made out.
9. In light of the above discussion, I am not in a position to agree with
Mr. C.P.Sivamohan. The revision to strike off is dismissed. Taking into
consideration that the parties have been litigating before the Courts from 2014
onwards, the learned Subordinate Judge at Alandur is requested to expedite
the proceedings and conclude the same within a period of 9 months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
pal
To
The Subordinate Judge at Alandur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.,
pal
24.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
