Madras High Court
J.Arun Raj Kumar vs A.Jeya Veronica on 7 January, 2025
C.R.P.No.5105 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.5105 of 2024
and CMP.No.28639 of 2024
J.Arun Raj Kumar .. Petitioner
Versus
1.A.Jeya Veronica
2.Joseph
3.Lidia .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.29 of 2022 on the file of the
Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at
Chengalpattu dated 28.11.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates
Mr.G.Kannan
For R1 : Mr.M.Padmanabhan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.5105 of 2024
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at
Chengalpattu in Crl.A.No.29 of 2022 dated 28.11.2023 in imposing
conditions while confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.I, Tambaram in Crl.M.P.No.2801 of 2022 in DVC.No.28 of 2016 dated
23.08.2021.
2.The civil revision petitioner is the first appellant in Crl.A.No.29 of
2022. The respondents 2 and 3 were the other appellants before the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at
Chengalpattu and they have not preferred any revision.
3.The petitioner married the first respondent as per the Christian rites
and customs on 13.12.2009 at Madurai. From the wedlock, a female child
was born on 05.01.2012. Due to disputes and differences, the parties have
separated. The petitioner had initiated I.D.O.P.No.42 of 2013 before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Family Court at Madurai seeking restitution of conjugal rights. This was
transferred to the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu and renumbered as
I.D.O.P.No.124 of 2014. This petition was allowed on 17.02.2015. Since
the parties did not reunite, the petitioner filed I.D.O.P.No.66 of 2015 on the
file of the Family Court at Madurai. Similarly, the first respondent had
initiated I.D.O.P.No.90 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Chengalpattu.
4.I.D.O.P.No.66 of 2015 was taken up for disposal and an exparte
decree of divorce was granted on 23.02.2016. The first respondent filed an
application to set aside the exparte decree in I.A.No.75 of 2017. That
application came to be dismissed for default on 30.01.2020. The petition
for divorce filed by the wife in I.D.O.P.No.90 of 2015 stood transferred to
the file of the Family Court at Chengalpattu and renumbered as
F.C.I.D.O.P.No.74 of 2016. The said petition was dismissed for default on
11.01.2021. Thereafter, the wife has initiated DVC.No.28 of 2016 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram. Summons were sent
to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein. They remained exparte.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the application on
23.08.2021.
5.Without any delay, the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 filed
Crl.M.P.No.2801 of 2022 in DVC.No.28 of 2016. The prayer before the
Court in Crl.M.P.No.2801 of 2022 was two fold. It sought for recalling of
the order dated 23.08.2021 as well as to dismiss DVC.No.28 of 2016 as not
maintainable. This application was resisted by the wife by filing a detailed
counter. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram passed an order
on 12.05.2022 allowing the application insofar as it related to the exparte
order and restored the DVC back on to the file. In other words, the order
passed for maintenance and other reliefs in and by way of the order dated
23.08.2021 was set aside. The wife did not file an appeal against this order.
6.Feeling aggrieved over the rejection of the petition insofar as it did
not dismissed the DVC as not maintainable, the sole petitioner and the
respondents 2 and 3 herein preferred Crl.A.No.29 of 2022. The learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram District at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Chengalpattu dismissed the appeal. However, the Court directed the
husband/civil revision petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance as fixed
by the Trial Court within a period of three months and in default, directed
forfeiture of the right to defend the DVC proceedings. Aggrieved by the
same, the present civil revision petition.
7.I heard Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for Mr.G.Kannan and
Mr.M.Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the first respondent.
8.When the exparte order passed in DVC.No.28 of 2016 on
23.08.2021 has been set aside, the order of maintenance granted under the
said order also stands set aside. No appeal had been preferred by the wife
aggrieved over setting aside the exparte order. The appeal had been
preferred by the husband and his parents aggrieved over the fact that the
latter portion of the petition in Crl.M.P.No.2801 of 2022 had been denied. I
do not find any error in the order of the learned Judge, holding that the
request of the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 to dismiss the petition
as not maintainable, is untenable. The view of the learned Trial Judge as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
well as the learned Appellate Judge holding the DVC is maintainable
requires confirmation and it is accordingly confirmed.
9.However, the learned Appellate Judge committed an error in
directing payment of maintenance, when the order directing maintenance
itself had been set aside. Therefore, that portion of the order alone requires
interference. The condition imposed by the learned Judge directing the civil
revision petitioner to pay arrears of maintenance within a period of three
months is set aside.
10.The learned Judicial Magistrate at Pallavaram is requested to
dispose of the application DVC No.55 of 2023 [originally filed before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram as DVC.No.28 of 2016] within
a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and
submit a report to this Court of compliance of the same. The learned
Judicial Magistrate at Pallavaram is requested to ensure that the proceedings
are conducted as expeditiously as possible ensuring that the matter receives
atleast two effective hearings every week.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.For reporting compliance, list the matter on 07.03.2025.
07.01.2025
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
cse
Note: Issue order copy on 08.01.2025
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Pallavaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
cse
07.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
