Ratios:
a. Civil Courts are not to grant relief which were not asked by the parties in the pleading.
b. The Courts may deny any relief to the person approaching the Court on the ground of his suppression of material facts.

The defendant in O.S.No.134 of 2006 is the appellant before this Court. She is aggrieved by the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi, dated 02-04-2008 made in A.S.No.21 of 2007, reversing the judgment dated 29-03-2007, made in O.S.No.134 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif, Sivakasi.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.

3. O.S.No.134 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff-husband, to pass a judgment and decree declaring that the defendant is not the wife of the plaintiff.

4. The case of the plaitniff in O.S.No.134 of 2006 is that, he is a born CSI Christian and the defendant is a born Hindu. Due to compulsion, a marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant took place on 29-01-1992 at Sivakasi, in S.A.S. Arunachala Nadar Meenambal Kalyana Mandapam. The marriage was conducted by a Hindu person and the marriage was called as Suyamariadhair marriage. The plaintiff printed a separate marriage invitation following the Christian customs and the defendant printed a separate marriage invitation in the Hindu marriage form. According to the plaintiff, the marriage itself is void in law and they would not be considered as husband and wife in law. It is his further contention that the Suyamariadhai marriage could be conducted only between two Hindus and not between a Hindu and a Christian. After the alleged marriage, on the first night of the marriage, the plaintiff approached the defendant for having sexual intercourse, but she refused. She informed the plaintiff that she is already in love with another person and therefore, it is not possible to make love with him. According to the plaintiff, the defendant lived with him as a Sister for about four months and finally she left the matrimonial home on 12-05-1992 to live with her parents. From then onwards for the last 14 years she has been living with her parents only.

5. It is pointed out by the plaintiff in the plaint that prior to filing the present suit, he filed O.P.No.1 of 1995 for divorce under the Special Marriage Act, before the District Court, Srivilliputhur. That petition was reistted by the defendant and the District Court held that since the marriage did not take place as per the Special Mariage Act, the petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Now, the defendant filed a maintenance application in M.C.No.165 of 2005 against the plaintiff before the family Court at Chennai alleging that she is the wife of the plaintiff. Hence, he filed O.S.No.134 of 2006 for the aforesaid relief. The defendant filed a written statement wherein it was stated that she is the wife of the plaintiff and she denied that she informed the plaintiff at the time of the first night that she was in love with another person,. She contended that O.P.No.1 of 1995 was dismissed on merits and the Court held that the defendant was neglected by the plaintiff and the plaintiff and his parents treated the defendant cruelly. The Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur further found that the defendant was always willing to live with the plaintiff and there was also sexual intercourse between them and they lived as husband and wife. According to the defendant, the judgment of the District Court, Srivilliputhur, made in O.P.No.1 of 1995 is a bar for filing the present suit and therefore the suit is barred by constructive res judicata. Having gone before the District Court, Srivilliputhur, by contending that there was a marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant and seeking divorce in O.P.No.1 of 1995, the plaintiff cannot now turn around to say that there was no marriage and the defendant is not his wife. It is pointed out by the defendant in the written statement that the suit has been filed after 14 years from the date of the marriage and therefore, the same is hit by law of limitation. This suit is only a counter-blast to the maintenance case filed by her in M.C.No.165 of 2005 and therefore, there