SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kavitha vs Ramamoorthy on 16 March, 2020

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2333 and 2334 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 16.03.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2333 and 2334 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.12270 and 12272 of 2019

Kavitha .. Petitioner in both C.R.Ps.

Vs.

Ramamoorthy .. Respondent in both C.R.Ps.

Common Prayer: These Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
the India, to call for the records of the Family Court, Sivagangai made in I.A.No.4 of
2019 in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2018 dated 05.11.2019 and to set aside the fair and decreetal
order.
For Petitioner (In both C.R.Ps.) : Mr.S.Jayakumar
For Respondent (In both C.R.Ps.) : Mr.N.Rahamadhullah

COMMON ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

2.These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order passed in

I.A.No.4 of 2019 in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2018 dated 05.11.2019, on the file of the Family

Court, Sivagangai.

1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2333 and 2334 of 2019

3.The petitioner herein is the wife and the respondent herein is the husband.

The husband has filed a petition for divorce. In that case, the wife has filed a petition in

I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2019 to recall P.W.1 and to reopen the trial.

4.Brief substance of the affidavits in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2019 is as follows:

The main O.P. Is pending for arguments. The case of the husband is that the

husband was working in Singapore and from the date of marriage till 2012, he went to

Singapore several times and P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that his passport was with

the wife. When the wife searched the house, she found the passport. To mark the

passport, the trial has to be reopened and the evidence of P.W.1 has to be recalled.

5.The brief substance of the counter in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2019 is as follows:

The wife has admitted that the husband was in Singapore. She has also

admitted in H.M.O.P.No.75 of 2017 that the husband was at Singapore and there is no

necessity to prove the aforesaid facts by way of passport. If the passport is necessary, it

can be marked through the wife. No body can be compelled to give evidence against

themselves. The reason for marking the passport is not elicited. Only to fill up the

lacunae in the case, the petitioner has come forward with this petition.

6.After considering both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petitions. Against

2/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2333 and 2334 of 2019

which, the petitioner has filed the revision petitions.

7.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the husband filed a divorce

petition in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2018. The wife has filed a petition for restitution of

conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.75 of 2017 and both the petitions are pending before the

Family Court, Sivagangai. When the husband was examined as P.W.1, he deposed that

his passport was in the hands of his wife. After searching in the house, the wife traced

out the passport and the passport is a necessary document and it should be marked

through P.W.1. The case has to be reopened and P.W.1 has to be recalled for marking

the passport.

8.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that already the wife filed

Transfer civil miscellaneous petition to transfer both the cases and that petitions were

rejected. After the entire evidence was over and after the case was four times

adjourned for arguments, the petitioner has filed this petition just to drag on the case.

It is stated that the allegation against the wife is an illegal intimacy with a third person.

The person who is in illegal intimacy with the wife was examined as P.W.2 and he has

admitted in his evidence that he was having illegal intimacy with the wife of the

respondent and P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2 and she has also deposed that she has lodged

a complaint against her husband, due to illegal intimacy with the revision petitioner.

R.W.2, the daughter of the revision petitioner deposed that there was some problem

3/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2333 and 2334 of 2019

between her father and mother due to one Muthukumar.

9.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that P.W.1 and 2 are friends of the

respondent/husband. Only on his instigation, they deposed against her. The said

Muthukumar referred by her daughter, is the brother of the revision petitioner and he

is a third person and not P.W.2.

10.On the side of petitioner, it is further stated that earlier the

respondent/husband has filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.64 of 2013 and there was

no such allegations at that time. Later the husband has withdrawn the petition.

11.On the side of the respondent, it is further stated that the

respondent/husband has already withdrawn the earlier petition. After the filing of the

earlier divorce petition, there was a family Panchayat, and due to the result of which

the husband withdraw the earlier petition but even after that the activities of the

revision petitioner did not change and that subsequently the husband was forced to file

another divorce petition which is pending now.

12.It is seen that there is some problem between the husband and wife and

two H.M.O.Ps. are pending. One is for restitution of conjugal rights and other is for

divorce. Both the husband and the wife make similar allegation of adultery against each

4/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2333 and 2334 of 2019

other.

13.Passport is with the wife is admitted by the husband. In the cross

examination of P.W.1, he has stated that he has not filed any document to show that he

returned back to India in the year 2008. In the counter, the husband has submitted that

the document may be marked through the petitioner. Hence, this Court directs the

lower Court to permit the revision petitioner to recall herself and to mark the document

through her. For marking of the document, the trial has to be reopened and the reopen

petition is to be allowed.

14.With the above direction, the civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. The

petitioner is at liberty to file a recall petition to examine herself and to mark the

passport of the husband. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

16.03.2020

Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
MRN

5/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2333 and 2334 of 2019

R. THARANI, J.

MRN

To

1.The Judge, Family Court,
Sivagangai.

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2333 and 2334 of 2019

16.03.2020

6/6
http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation