IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 27/04/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
Civil Revision Petition (PD)No.2746 of 2003
and
C.M.P.No.20747 of 2003 and V.C.M.P.No.1221 of 2004
T.Siva Raman ... Petitioner
-Vs-
P.Renganayaki ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India against the order dated 30.9.2003 and made in I.A.No.870 of 2003 in
F.C.O.P.No.1195 of 2002 on the file of the Second Additional Family Court,
Chennai.
!For petitioner : Prof.S.Krishnaswamy.
^For respondent : Mr.C.Ravichandran
:O R D E R
The revision is preferred by the husband against the order of the
petition in I.A.No.870 of 2003 for dismissing the Original Petition No.1195 of
2002 filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court
dismissed the Petition I.A.No.870 of 2003 as per order dated 30.9.2003.
2. The facts of the case are that the revision petitioner married the
respondent on 16.3.2000 as per Hindu Rites and Customs in Vijaya Raju Kalyana
Mandapam, Adyar, Chennai and the marriage is an arranged marriage and after
marriage, the respondent stayed in the matrimonial home at B-2, Flat No.26,
C.V.Koil Street, Alwar Thirunagar, Chennai-600 087 only for five days and
thereafter, she left India to the United States of America on 30.3.2000 and
who was employed in Arizona as Software Consultant. The revision petitioner
got a job in Los Angeles in California State in the United States of America
as a Post Graduate MCA in Computer Application and has joined as Software
Consultant on 12.6.2000 at Rapidigm in Los Angeles. When the revision
petitioner met the respondent on 30.6.2000, 21.7.2000, 4.8.2000, 18.8.2000,
8.9.2000 and 29.9.2000 in United States of America, the respondent refused to
accommodate so as to co-habitate with the revision petitioner. The revision
petitioner lastly met her when she lived in California State in the United
States of America and later she disappeared and despite the sincere efforts
through U.S. Search Com. the revision petitioner could not search her.
During the visit of the revision petitioner in India, on 13.8.2001, the
revision petitioner caused lawyer notice to the respondent to her last known
address in California State in the U.S. marking a copy to her father in his
address at Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041 and the respondent replied with
false averments on 15.10.2001. The revision petitioner sent rejoinder on
27.11.2001. After reply by the respondent nothing was heard about her. On
return to U.S. On 18.9.2001 and after waiting for long time, the revision
petitioner tried for marital settlement agreement as per the American Law for
mutual divorce. There was no response from the respondent. Thereafter the
revision petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the
Superior Court of California State, Country of Los Angeles in the U.S. in
Case No.VDO 49409 on 23.4.2002 where the respondent lastly met the revision
petitioner at California State and within the jurisdiction of California
Superior Court. The respondent filed counter objecting the jurisdiction of
the said Court to which the revision petitioner filed a reply. When the case
was posted in Superior Court of California Country of Las Angeles on 5.8.2002
for the appearance of the respondent, she had run away from U.S.A. and came
to India. But, however, filed petition in O.P.No.1195 of 2002 under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in July 2002.
The Superior Court of California granted decree of dissolution of marriage in
the Case No.VDO 49409, between the revision petitioner and the respondent
effective from 10.2.20 03 and the decree is dated 9.1.2003. The Family Court
has no jurisdiction to continue the trial in O.P.No.1195 of 2002 and the
judgment of the California Court is binding on the Family Court under Section
4 1 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the petition O.P.No.1195 of 200 2 for
restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent is not maintainable. Hence,
the revision petitioner has filed the petition I.A.No.870 of 2003 to dismiss
the O.P.No.1195 of 2002 filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal
rights.
3. The petition I.A.No.870 of 2003 was opposed in the counter filed
by the respondent that the petition subject matter of this revision has been
filed to drag the proceedings in O.P.No.1195 of 2002 filed for restitution of
conjugal rights. It is further stated that the revision petitioner has
obtained the alleged decree of divorce by playing fraud upon the Superior
Court, Los Angeles Country, California and in any event the said Court is not
having competent jurisdiction to try matrimonial cause between the revision
petitioner and the respondent which was consummated in Chennai, India and as
such, it is only the Family Court, which has got jurisdiction. The alleged
decree of dissolution of marriage obtained by the revision petitioner is only
an ex parte decree. The respondent never submitted to the jurisdiction of
Superior Court Los Angeles Country, California and also her counsel. The
alleged decree of dissolution of marriage delivered by Superior Court Los
Angeles Country, California is not valid in law, since it is passed without
jurisdiction and as such, Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act is not
applicable. The grounds raised in the matrimonial proceedings in Superior
Court Los Angeles Country, California are not the grounds covered under the
Hindu Marriage Act. It is denied that the respondent remained in U.S.A. as
an independent unmarried woman and that the respondent has no contact with the
revision petitioner except for five days after marriage. There is no
desertion even as per American Law and no ground for desertion as per Hindu
Law. The desertion mentioned in the judgment for dissolution of marriage does
not confirm the requirements of desertion as per the provision of Hindu
Marriage Act. It is denied that the respondent deserted the revision
petitioner committing lot of cruelty against him and against his parents. It
is also denied that the respondent never cohabited with the revision
petitioner except for five days immediately after the marriage at
Alwarthirunagar. The respondent lived with the revision petitioner after
marriage till 30.3.2000 and the revision petitioner refused to live with the
respondent when he came to U.S.A. in June, 2000 at the instigation of his
parents. The respondent left U.S.A. in June, 2002 under the instruction of
the revision petitioner so that they can rejoin in India, since the revision
petitioner had planned to come to India in December, 2002 to settle down.
Thereafter, the respondent did not go to U.S.A. and submitted to the
jurisdiction of the Superior Court Los Angeles Country, California.
4. The Second Additional Family Court, Chennai, in refusing to accept
the case of the revision petitioner/husband dismissed the petition I.A.No.870
of 2003 filed to dismiss the O.P.No.1195 of 2002 filed by the respondent/wife
for restitution of conjugal rights, as per order dated 30.9.2003. The
correctness of the order is challenged in this revision.
5. Heard Prof.S.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner/husband and Mr.C.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent/wife.
6. The respondent filed O.P.No.1195 of 2002 in the Family Court,
Chennai against her husband, the revision petitioner for restitution of
conjugal rights. The Original Petition was filed in July, 2002. In the
Original Petition, the circumstances that led to the marriage between the
revision petitioner and the respondent on 16.3.2000 is stated. It is further
stated that the respondent stayed in her matrimonial home till 30.3.2000 at
Alwarthirunagar, Chennai and she left India on that date to U.S.A. and also
arranged job for the revision petitioner in Los Angeles, California. It is
also stated in the Original Petition that the revision petitioner and the
respondent met at weekends, since the revision petitioner was employed at
Arizona and the respondent was employed at Los Angeles. Both the revision
petitioner and the respondent celebrated Deepavali at Sanfransisco for 4 days.
They celebrated their wedding anniversary on 16.3.2001. The revision
petitioner told the respondent to accept a job offer in Virginia in March,
2001 and the revision petitioner also promised that he will get a job and both
can live together. The respondent joined the job in April 2001, but the
respondent did not keep up his words. The revision petitioner alone went to
India without informing the respondent and when the respondent called him over
phone in India, the revision petitioner’s parents told her to give bank
balance or agree for mutual divorce. Though the respondent informed that she
wants to live with her husband, the revision petitioner, he refused to live
with her and caused a lawyer notice dated 8.9.2001, to which a reply was sent
on 15.10.2001. The revision petitioner sent rejoinder. The respondent is
willing to live with her husband, the revision petitioner, in separate house
and she has left her job in U.S.A. and settled down in India for the purpose
of rejoining with her husband, the revision petitioner.
7. The said petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights is
resisted in the counter filed by the revision petitioner on 24.2.2003 raising
the very same averments as raised in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition I.A.No.870 of 2003, which was also filed on the same day i.e. on
24.2.2003, subject matter of this revision.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued
narrating the facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the divorce
petition in Superior Court of California and immediately the respondent
engaged a counsel and since she did not appear for the final hearing, decree
of divorce has been granted by the said Court and as such, O.P.No.1195 of 2002
filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights is not
maintainable. According to the learned counsel that both the parties, viz.,
the revision petitioner and the respondent belong to Hindu Community and their
marriage was solemnised on 16.3.2000 as per Hindu Rites and Customs, inasmuch
as both the revision petitioner and the respondent, who were in America during
the relevant time and within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of
California, the divorce granted by that Court as per American Laws is very
much in force. In this regard, the learned counsel also submitted that after
the summons have been duly served on the respondent from the Superior Court of
California in which she also entered appearance through counsel, but not
appeared for the final hearing, in which day it was posted for consideration
of divorce petition filed by the revision petitioner. For her non-appearance,
divorce has been granted. Inasmuch as the petition for divorce was filed by
the revision petitioner, in which summons was served upon the respondent and
to escape from the divorce proceedings, the respondent had left California to
Chennai, India and has filed O.P.No.1195 of 2002 for restitution of conjugal
rights in July, 2002. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, since the
revision petitioner and his wife having separated by the decree of divorce
granted by the Superior Court of California, the O.P.No.1195 of 2002 filed by
the respondent/wife in the Family Court at Chennai is very much not
maintainable. In support of such contentions, the learned counsel has relied
on the following decisions:-
(1) Ishri Prasad vs. – Sri Ram reported in A.I.R. 1927 Allahabad
510, in which it is held that burden of proving want of jurisdiction in
foreign court is on defendant. It is further held thus:-
“It is well settled rule of international law that Courts cannot, by
their judgments, bind absent foreigners who have not submitted to their
jurisdiction, and can only exercise jurisdiction over persons who are within
the territorial limits of their jurisdiction, and, therefore, a judgment of a
foreign Court obtained against a defendant cannot be enforced in British India
where the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit was not a
subject of, nor resident in, the country in which the judgment was obtained.
Therefore in a suit based on a foreign judgment, one of the questions that
arises for consideration is, was the defendant at the time of the commencement
of the suit in the foreign Court residing within the territorial limits of the
jurisdiction of the State in which the suit was brought. But on the
production of a certified copy of a foreign judgment the Court is bound to
presume that the judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction
and therefore it devolves on the defendant by his pleading and evidence to
deny and disprove every fact and circumstance which negative the jurisdiction
of the foreign Court.”
(2) Sankaran Govindan vs. – Lakshmi Bharathi and others reported in
A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 1764, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
thus:-
“Unless a foreign Court has jurisdiction in the international sense, a
judgment delivered by that Court would not be recognised or enforceable in
India. The true basis of enforcement of a foreign judgment is that the
judgment imposes an obligation upon the defendant and, therefore, there must
be a connection between him and the forum sufficiently close to make it his
duty to perform that obligation.”
(3) Nirmala Balagopal vs. – Venkatesulu Balagopal reported in 200
3(4) C.T.C. 451, in which, this Court has held thus:-
“Contract Act, 1872, Section 70. Fraud. Wife filed proceedings for
separation in Court of State of Connecticut, united States of America. Wife
and Husband entered in Post Marital Agreement during pendency of proceedings
in USA, whereby husband agreed not to institute any legal action for divorce
or legal separation against wife in India irrespective of whether or not
husband resides in India. Subsequently both husband and wife came to
Coimbatore and lived in rental flat. Husband filed petition for divorce
before Family Court. Action of husband consists of two parts namely (a)
Entering into Post Marital Agreement (b) Filing of petitions for dissolution
of marriage in India by violating clause of Post Marital Agreement. Filing of
petition is not fraud. Entering into an agreement without intending to act in
terms of agreement could amount to fraud if wife could prove that mental
condition of husband at time of agreement was polluted one containing
fraudulent ideas. Wife did not furnish any material to establish fraud and
husband is not guilty of fraud.”
(4) Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vs. – M/s.Essar Oil Ltd., &
others reported in 2004(8) Supreme Court 304, in which the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held:-
“By “fraud” is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any
expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill will towards the
other is immaterial. The expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and
injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss,
that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable or of money and
it will include and any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind,
reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary
loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost always call loss or
detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit
or advantage to be deceiver, but not corresponding loss to the deceived, the
second condition is satisfied.”
“Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice
never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which
includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand
as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is
also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed,
innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.
A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man
into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on
falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he
knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which
the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court
is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive
the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the
transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in
a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all
equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated
or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata.”
9. Learned counsel for the respondent strenuously argued that
inasmuch as the revision petitioner and the belongs to Hindu Community and the
marriage was celebrated as per Hindu Rites and Customs in Chennai, the divorce
granted by the Superior Court of California on the application by the revision
petitioner is improper and invalid. The learned counsel further submitted
that inasmuch as the respondent was not submitted to the jurisdiction of the
Superior Court of California, the divorce granted by that Court is not
enforceable and as such, it is invalid. The learned counsel further contended
that by playing fraud, the divorce has been obtained by the revision
petitioner against the respondent in the foreign court may be Superior Court
of California and suppressing the material facts and therefore, according to
the learned counsel, inasmuch as the divorce granted by foreign court, viz.,
Superior Court of California being invalid, the O.P.No.1195 of 2002 filed by
the respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights is very much
maintainable. The learned counsel also submitted that inasmuch as the
revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not
maintainable. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment in Y.Narasimha
Rao vs. – Y.Venkata Lakshmi reported in (1991)3 Supreme Court Cases 451, in
which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:-
“The decree dissolving the marriage passed by the foreign court is
without jurisdiction according to the Hindu Marriage Act as neither the
marriage was celebrated nor the parties last resided together nor the
respondent resided within the jurisdiction of that court. Residence does not
mean a temporary residence for the purpose of obtaining a divorce but habitual
residence or residence which is intended to be permanent for future as well.
The decree had been obtained by appellant 1 by stating that he was the
resident of the Missouri State when the record shows that he was only a bird
of passage there and was ordinarily a resident of the State of Louisiana. He
had, if at all, only technically satisfied the requirement of residence of 90
days with the only purpose of obtaining the divorce. He was neither domiciled
in that State nor had he an intention to make it his home. He had also no
substantial connection with the forum. Appellant 1 had further brought no
rules on record under which the St. Louis Court could assume jurisdiction
over the matter. On the contrary, he had in his petition made a false
averment that respondent 1 had refused to continue to stay with him in the
State of Missouri where she had never been. Therefore, the case can be
disposed of on the narrow ground that the appellant played a fraud on the
foreign court representing to it incorrect jurisdiction facts. However, even
presuming that the foreign court by its own rules of jurisdiction had rightly
entertained the dispute and granted a valid decree of divorce according to its
law, it must be held that since with regard to the jurisdiction of the forum
as well as the ground on which it was passed the foreign decree in the present
case is not in accordance with the Act under which the parties were married,
and the respondent had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the court or
consented to its passing, it cannot be recognised by the courts in this
country and is, therefore, unenforceable.”
“The relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Code are capable of
being interpreted to secure the required certainty in the sphere of this
branch of law in conformity with public policy, justice, equity and good
conscience, and the rules so evolved will protect the sanctity of the
institution of marriage and the unity of family which are the cornerstones of
our societal life. Today the need for definitive rules for recognition of
foreign judgments in personal and family matters, and particularly in
matrimonial disputes has surged to the surface. Though the rules of guidance
may prove inadequate or miss some aspects but a beginning has to be made as
best as one can, the lacunae and the errors being left to be filled in and
corrected by future judgments.”
“On an interpretation of Section 13 CPC the following rule can be
deducted for recognising a foreign matrimonial judgment in this country. The
jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the
relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which
the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i)
where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is
domiciled or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a
ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married;
(ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the
jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is
based on a ground available under the the matrimonial law under which the
parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the
relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the
provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties.”
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the
revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very much
maintainable. In support of such a view, the learned counsel relied on the
decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. – Ram Chander Rai and others reported in
A.I.R. 2003 Supreme Court 3044, in which the Hon’ ble Supreme Court has held
thus:-
“Amendment by Act No.46 of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002 in Section
115 C.P.C. cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Interlocutory
orders, passed by the Courts subordinate to the High Court, against which
remedy of revision has been excluded by the C.P.C. Amendment Act No.46 of
1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to
certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.”
“The curtailment of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does not
take away and could not have taken away the constitutional jurisdiction of the
High Court to issue a writ of certiorari to a Civil Court nor the power of
superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution is taken away or whittled down. The power exists, untrammelled
by the amendment in Section 115 of the C. P.C. and is available to be
exercised subject to rules of selfdiscipline and practice which are well
settled.”
11. It is admitted that the revision petitioner married the
respondent on 16.3.2000 at Adayar, Chennai as per Hindu Rites and Customs and
after the marriage, the respondent stayed in the matrimonial home at
Alwarthirunagar, Chennai for 5 days. The respondent left India to United
States of America on 30.3.2000 and the revision petitioner went to United
States of America on 11.6.2000 and met his wife, the respondent on 30.6.2000
at Arizona, United States of America, where the respondent was working. The
case of the revision petitioner that the respondent refused to resume
matrimonial relation is denied by the respondent. Further, according to the
revision petitioner, he was deserted by the respondent and therefore, after
causing lawyer notice dated 13.8.2001, which was replied by the respondent on
15.10.2001, to which the revision petitioner sent rejoinder on 27.11.2001, the
revision petitioner filed petition for dissolution of marriage on 23.4.2 002
in the Superior Court of California in the United States of America, as per
the case No.VDO 49409. Notice was also sent by the revision petitioner’s
counsel on 20.5.2002 along with marital settlement agreement, but the
respondent filed petition for declaration to quash the proceedings in June,
2002 in the U.S. Court, Los Angeles, California. It appears the proceedings
were posted in that Court on 11.9.20 02 in the Superior Court of California
and in the proceedings, the revision petitioner appeared in person and the
respondent was represented by her counsel, during which proceedings,
deliberations were made as to whether the Indian Court or California Court has
jurisdiction over the matter. During the proceedings, the counsel for the
respondent represented that he will talk to her client about the stipulation
to have the said Court jurisdiction over the status for granting divorce to
the revision petitioner and the respondent counsel also informed to talk to
the respondent to put a stipulation together for signing and filing so that
the Court can adjudicate the divorce. During the proceedings on 22.10.2002,
the counsel for the revision petitioner took final 30 days’ time since the
respondent believed that there is no jurisdiction and if 30 days extension is
given, they may get stipulation papers from the wife, who is in India to have
a judgment for status only through the superior Court of California and the
respondent is checking with her Attorney to India before signing a slip and
they have been waiting for a process. Finally, it appears on 9.1.2003 , a
decree of dissolution of marriage between the revision petitioner and the
respondent was granted by the Superior Court of California, as per which the
marital status ended on 10.2.2003 and such a decree was granted in the absence
of the respondent and as such, it is an ex parte judgment.
12. There is nothing to show that the revision petitioner and the
respondent entered into a marital settlement agreement during the pendency of
proceedings in United States of America not to institute any legal action for
divorce or legal representation in India and as such, no inference can be
drawn that the respondent agreed for divorce proceedings in America as per the
American Laws. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dissolution of marriage
granted by the Superior Court of California in the petition filed by the
revision petitioner against the respondent is valid. The law on the point is
very well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in
1991(3) Supreme Court Cases 451 (cited supra) that the decree dissolving the
marriage passed by the foreign Court is without jurisdiction according to the
Hindu Marriage Act as neither the marriage was celebrated nor the parties last
resided together nor the respondent resided within the jurisdiction of that
Court. It is also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the residence does
not mean a temporary residence for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, but
habitual residence or residence which is to be permanent for future as well.
Admittedly, the revision petitioner is not a permanent resident of America and
in fact, he secured a job in America after the marriage with the respondent
and reached America in June, 2002. It is not made clear as to how the
Superior Court of California has got jurisdiction over the matter. The
dissolution of marriage granted by the Superior Court of California in any way
is to be considered as not in accordance with the Act, viz., Hindu Marriage
Act under which both the revision petitioner and the respondent married and
the respondent had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of
California or consented to its passing and therefore, the dissolution of
marriage granted by Superior Court of California cannot be recognised and as
such, unenforceable. In interpreting Section 13 C.P.C., it is further settled
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the jurisdiction assum ed by the foreign
Court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in
accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married.
Admittedly, the respondent has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the
Superior Court at California and also not consented to the grant of relief
although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the
provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties. The respondent was not a
permanent resident of America when the dissolution of marriage was granted by
the Superior Court of California for granting the relief, in the matrimonial
law under which the revision petitioner and the respondent got married.
Therefore, there is no explanation to recognise the foreign matrimonial
judgment for granting relief in accordance with the matrimonial law under
which the parties are married.
13. As per Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for seeking relief
of divorce by mutual consent, petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree
of divorce is to be presented to District Court on the ground that they have
been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not
been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the
marriage should be dissolved and as per subsection (2) of Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, only after six months after date of the presentation of
the petition and the Court is satisfied to pass a decree of divorce declaring
the marriage to be dissolved.
14. As observed by the Family Court the dissolution of marriage
between the revision petitioner and the respondent was granted by saying that
they were living separately for more than 6 months and from 13.3.2000 to
29.9.2000, which is incorrect, in view of the fact that after the marriage on
16.3.2000, the respondent lived in the matrimonial home for five days and when
contacted, the respondent informed the petitioner on 30.6.2000 that she does
not like him and that the revision petitioner also met her on 7.7.2000 and
21.7.2000. Further, the petition I.A.No.870 of 2003, subject matter of this
revision is filed under Section 151 C.P.C. itself is not maintainable as
rightly observed by the Family Court, since that petition was filed to invoke
the inherent powers of the Court by dismissing the O.P.No.1195 of 2002 filed
for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent. Therefore, in the light
of the discussions made above, it is clear that the Family Court has not
committed any error in dismissing the petition I.A.No.870 of 2003, subject
matter of this revision, filed for dismissal of O.P.No.1195 of 2002 and the
order of the Family Court does not call for any interference.
15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition fails and is
dismissed. The order dated 30.9.2003 in I.A.No.870 of 2003 in F.C.O.P.No.1195
of 2002 passed by the Second Additional Family Court, Chennai is confirmed.
No costs. Consequently, connected petitions C.M.P.No.20747 of 2003 and
V.C.M.P.No.1221 of 2004 are closed.
Index: Yes.
Internet:Yes.
ts.
To
The Second Additional Family Court,
Chennai.