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.

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

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.

2. For the sake of the convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the Original Petition.

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.

4. OP.No.5091 of 2021 pleads that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 15.08.1999. It was in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. It is alleged that the marriage took place at Sri Angala Parameswari Temple at Vadapalani in Chennai. The petitioner pleaded that the marriage took place in the presence of friends, viz., Thilagar, Bharani and few others. The petitioner further pleaded that the parties set up their matrimonial home at No.40/A, Vasantha Nagar, Thiruvottriyur, Chennai.

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 respondent tied a mangalsutra to the petitioner at her residence. Subsequently, the respondent married the petitioner as aforesaid. The petitioner pleaded that she has photographs and evidences to support the said pleadings. She pleaded that the respondent started refusing his society with her and it constrained her to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

6. Summons were served on the respondent. He did not appear before the learned Family Judge. The learned Family Judge set the respondent exparte. An exparte decree was passed on 28.04.2022. On coming to know about the exparte decree, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 to condone the delay of 36 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree dated 28.04.2022. Along with the said application, the respondent also filed another application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the exparte decree.

7. On the petitioner, making an endorsement before the learned Judge on 12.07.2022, that the delay may be condoned without prejudice to her rights, the application to condone the delay stood allowed on that date. On 14.07.2022, the exparte decree was also set aside. The parties were restored to their original position. Thereafter on 20.07.2022, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2022. This application was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. The plea of the respondent is that there is no matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Hence, the original petition is not maintainable. He pleaded that she was employed only as a telephone operator in his office and she had quit the