BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07/02/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.32 of 2006 and C.M.P.(MD) No.356 of 2006 R.Thiruppathy ... Petitioner Vs Sasikala ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and Decreetal order dated 31.10.2005 in I.A.No.248 of 2005 in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. !For Petitioner ... No appearance ^For Respondent ... Mr.G.Chandrasekar :ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is focussed against the fair and Decreetal
order dated 31.10.2005 in I.A.No.248 of 2005 in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2002 on the
file of the Family Court, Madurai.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent is present. The learned counsel
for the petitioner, and the petitioner are absent. Since, this is an old matter
relating to a matrimonial dispute and the petitioner has not appeared, I would
like to dispose of the matter on merits.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition as stood exposited
from the records would run thus:
The husband filed H.M.O.P.37 of 2002 and got divorce. During the pendency
of the H.M.O.P.37 of 2002, I.A.No.248 of 2005 was filed, however it was disposed
of on the date of disposal of the H.M.O.P. itself, by ordering return of the
jewels and articles as claimed by the wife. No appeal was filed as against the
order granting divorce. However, instead of filing an appeal as contemplated
under Section 19 before this Court, the petitioner has chosen to invoke Article
227 of the Constitution of India and filed this C.R.P.
5. On hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, I
could see from the records that the trial Court gave a finding based on evidence
that out of the 24 sovereigns of jewels given to the wife at the time of
marriage by her parents, 12 sovereigns of jewels were given by the husband, to
his sister at the time of her marriage. Relying upon the oral evidence, the
family Court passed such an order. Ex-facie and prima-facie there is no
illegality in passing the order. In this Civil Revision Petition, this Court
cannot once again re-appreciate the evidence on record. Hence, there is no
merits in the revision.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected C.M.P.(MD) No.356 of 2006 is closed. No costs.
sj
To
1.The Judge,
Family Court,
Madurai.