The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the terms of compromise in mutual consent divorce cases and preventing the abuse of court process.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.12.2020 in I.A.No.4 of 2019 in H.M.O.P.No.325 of 2019 passed by the Additional Family court, Chennai.)

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.12.2020 in I.A.No.4 of 2019 in H.M.O.P.No.325 of 2019 passed by the Additional Family court, Chennai.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner and the respondent, who are husband and wife have filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.325 of 2019 to dissolve the marriage soleminised between them on 13.03.2000 on mutual consent. The said H.M.O.P.was allowed and the said marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent. Subsequently, I.A.No.4 of 2019 was filed by the respondent / wife to direct the petitioner / husband to return sreedhana and household articles to her and a counter was filed by the respondent resisting the claim. The court below allowed the said petition. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner / husband is before this Court.

3. The case of the petitioner / husband is that the arranged marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was soleminized on 13.03.2000 at Welcome Hotel No.241, Purasawalkam High Roard, Chennai - 7, as per Hindu Rites and Custom in the presence of relatives and elders of both the families. Since there was no cohabitation between the petitioner and the respondent and that they are living separately from 23.07.2004, earlier, the petitioner filed a divorce petition in O.P.No.2395 of 2004 and thereafter, the respondent filed a petition for maintenance in M.C.NO.529 of 2007 and an interim petition in M.P.No.662 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai. When the said cases are pending, at the intervention of both the families, the petitioner and the respondent agreed to separate themselves by mutual consent. Accordingly, the petitioner and the respondent withdrawn their respective cases on 21.01.2019 and filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent in O.P.No.325 of 2019. Thereafter, the said petition was allowed and the marriage was dissolved. Suddenly, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2019 seeking return of sreedhana and household articles, the same is abuse of process of court, however, the said petition was allowed by the court below, hence this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that upon receiving the summons in the above said I.A., the petitioner filed his counter denying the claim of the respondent, however, without considering the averments contained in the counter, the court below had allowed the said I.A., which is contrary to law .

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that the court below failed to consider that the claim made by the respondent in the said I.A., for return of her sreedhana and house hold articles listed in the petition is not at all maintainable, that too after obtaining mutual consent. Further, in paragraph no.8 of the H.M.O.P.No.325 of 2019, it is clearly stated that the respondent was in receipt of sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash towards her permanent alimony and in paragraph nos.9 and 10, it has been clearly stated that except the above amount, at the time of desertion they have already exchanged their respective articles from each other and the respondent has taken all her sreedhana articles, dress materials etc., Though the court below clearly extracted the averments in the petition, however, has allowed the petition, which is baseless and liable to be set aside.

6. Though notice to the respondent through Court and privately was ordered as early as on 12.07.2021 and again, fresh notice was ordered to the respondent on 23.07.2021, the court notice had been returned -as no such person- and again notice was ordered to the respondent on 04.11.2022 and the name of the respondent has been printed in