Petition for production of letters written by husband to her wife negatived.

These two civil revision petitions arise out of a common order dated 29-3-1996 in I.A. No. 345 of 1992 in H.M.O.P. No. 16 of 1992 and I.A. No. 1179 of 1995 in O.S. No. 1297 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.

2. The aforesaid two petitions were filed by the husband against the wife. First one is for sending the respondent for medical examination to find out whether she remained virgin, while the other one was for direction against her to produce the letters written by the petitioner to her.

3. The short facts leading to this peculiar type of petitions are as follows: The petitioner was a divorcee and after he contracted the marriage again with the respondent on 14-12-1991 and the same was registered on 16-12-1991. Even though they lived together for some time happily at Madras, the respondent went away from the matrimonial home. Hence, he has filed HMOP No. 16 of 1992 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As a counter blast, the respondent filed O.S. No. 1297 of 1995 for declaration that her marriage with the petitioner is void.

4. The defence was that the attempt of the petitioner was only to harass and humiliate the respondent. There is no necessity for examining her medically and for production of the letters. She also contended that there was no bona fide at all in the two petitions. The petitioner committed fraud by misrepresenting to her that she would be taken to Russia and believing his representation she was persuaded to agree for the marriage, while she was very young and the petitioner was middle aged.

5. It should also be noted that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed at Madras, while the suit for declaration was filed at Tiruchirappalli and pursuant to an order passed for transfer by the High Court, both the applications have been directed to be tried by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. That is why both the cases were taken up by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

6. After considering the arguments advanced on both sides, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, rejected both the applications. Hence, the husband has come to this Court by way of the aforesaid two revision petitions.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. Jothi, after taking through the pleadings submitted that according to the respondent, there was no consummation of the marriage and from the beginning there was no cordial relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondent. The learned counsel contended as per Order 11, Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code, his client is entitled to call upon the respondent to produce the letters which would show that there was cordial relationship. Further, the medical examination of the respondent would show that there was consummation of the marriage and only for the said purpose, the applications have been filed. He added that it is not correct to state that the applications have been taken out with any mala fide intention or for harassing or humiliating the respondent. As the evidence is required, the applications were filed.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. T. Murugamanickam, contended that the attempt is only to humiliate and annoy the respondent. Petitioner's idea is only to insult and cause injury to the respondent. That apart, the attempt of the petitioner itself shows how bad the conduct of the petitioner is. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, a genuine husband would not make such attempts to spoil the life of the respondent.

9. I will consider first, the application under Order 11, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code relating to the production of the letters alleged to have been written by the petitioner to the respondent. As per Order 11, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code, the Court has power to order production of a document relating to any matter in question, in possession or power of a party. T