Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
G. Kothandaraman – Appellant
Versus
Latha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marriage claim and respondent's denial (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. respondent's plea of no marriage (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. family court's dismissal of application (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
ORDER :
This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned IV Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.P.No.5091 of 2021 dated 12.01.2024.
3. O.P.No.5091 of 2021 is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed an application seeking for rejection of Original Petition. This petition was numbered as I.A.No.3 of 2022. After receipt of a counter, the learned Trial Judge by order dated 12.01.2024 dismissed the application. Hence, this revision.
5. The petitioner further stated that prior to the matrimony, the petitioner was an employee with the respondent. During this period of employer-employee relationship, the parties developed an intimate relationship. In the relationship, the petitioner conceived on a couple of occasions. On the request of the respondent, the pregnancies were terminated. The petitioner pleaded that on 15.05.1996, the responden
The Family Court must only consider the averments in the plaint for rejection and cannot look into additional evidence at this stage.
The court affirmed that a rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 requires accepting the averments in the petition as true, deferring substantive marital status determinations to main proceedings....
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it fails to disclose a cause of action, and the burden lies on the plaintiff to provide necessary documentation to substantiate claims, especially ....
The rejection of plaint is valid under mandatory provisions when the plaintiff fails to provide necessary documentation to support their claim for partition.
(1) No application for amendment shall be allowed after trial has commenced unless court comes to conclusion that in spite of due diligence party could not have raised matter before commencement of t....
The judgment establishes the principle that the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC is limited to the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction, and doe....
Rejection of plaint – Plaint cannot be rejected in part.
Restitution of conjugal rights – Where marriage itself is not proved, decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be sustained.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
