Madras High Court
Rajakumari vs Vijay Sugumaran on 18 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.M.AMD) No.991 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.M.A(MD)No.991 of 2018
Rajakumari ... Appellant/Petitioner/
Respondent
-Vs-
Vijay Sugumaran ...Respondent/
Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984, against the fair and decreetal order dated 06.07.2018 in I.A.No.
90 of 2015 in H.M.O.P.No.466 of 2014 by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ramasamy
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 11:56:09 am )
C.M.AMD) No.991 of 2018
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order of dismissal
passed by the Family Court, Madurai, in I.A.No.90 of 2015 filed to set aside the
ex-parte order daed 30.09.2014 passed in H.M.O.P.No.466 of 2014.
2.The short point involved in this case is whether notice and summons in
the proceedings duly served on the respondent/petitioner before passing the ex-
parte order.
3.The Court below, after examining the petitioner as P.W.1 and the
respondent as R.W.1 and on examining of Ex.P..1 to Ex.P.4, Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 and
Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner has received the
summons and therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioner in her non-appearance
on 01.09.2014 is not sufficient and acceptable one.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
Court below had failed properly appreciated the documentary evidence placed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 11:56:09 am )
before him for comparison. Admittedly, the signature of the petitioner is not the
signature found in the notice. Despite that the trial Court believing the oral
evidence of the R.W.1 to R.W.3 had dismissed the application to set aside the ex-
parte order. The learned counsel for the appellant would specifically contend that
with an intention, the respondent has shown his own address as the address of his
wife and manage to create record as if notice was duly served on the petitioner to
get ex-parte order of divorce. It is the case of fraud committed on the Court which
requires a serious action. Unfortunately, the Court below had not appreciated the
evidence placed before it and had wrongly held that the signature found in Ex.R.
3-sale deed tally with the signature of the petitioner found in the admitted
document.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court that
Ex.R.3 is the photocopy of the Marriage Certificate and not a sale deed as narrated
by the Court below in the impugned order.
6.To verify the above document, this Court call for records and found that
the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is correct.
Ex.R.3 is the photocopy of the Marriage Registration Certificate. There is no sale
deed marked as either on the petitioner side or on the respondent side. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 11:56:09 am )
in the impugned order, the Court below has referred the above document is not in
existence.
7.To ascertain whether there is any other document available with the
respondent to substantiate his claim that the signature found in the summons is
that of the petitioner, this Court gave an opportunity to the learned counsel for the
respondent to produce the sale deed mentioned in the impugned order as Ex.R.3.
This Court, for the said purpose, adjourned the matter from 28.02.2025 to
05.03.2025.
8.Today when the matter called, the learned counsel for the respondent
produced the copy of the sale deed dated 21.11.2005 in which as purchaser the
petitioner had signed as Rajakumar Sugumaran, which tallies with the signatures
found in the summons.
9.The learned counsel for the respondent also explained that in the earlier
round of litigation, High Court remandeded the matter back to the trial Court to
mark the sale deed for comparison and decide. Accordingly, the copy of the sale
deed was marked as Ex.R.3 and the trial Court only on verification the sale deed
dismissed the I.A holding the petitioner contention is not correct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 11:56:09 am )
10.This Court on verification of records found that the submission of the
learned counsel for the respondent is correct. Due to inadvertence, the trial Court
has not indexed the said exhibit properly. After remand by the High Court, the
trial Court has appreciated the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner
marked it as Ex.R3. On comparison of the admitted signature in the sale deed
Ex.R.3, with the signature found in summons and in the light of the evidence
given by the Post Man and the Process Server has concluded that the respondent
in H.M.O.P.No.466 of 2014 (ie) the petitioner in I.A.No.90 of 2015 had received
the summon, however remained ex-parte.
11.This Court, therefore, for the reasons stated above, dismissed the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal. No order as to costs.
[G.J., J.] & [R.P., J.]
18.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Ns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 11:56:09 am )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
Ns
To
1.The learned Judge,
Family Court,
Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
18.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 11:56:09 am )
