O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the learned II Additional Family Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in O.P.No.5347 of 2019 dated 24.05.2022.

2. Heard Mr.T.C.S.Raja Chockalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The revision petitioner and the respondent got married on 01.05.2012 and started to live as husband and wife at the petitioner's residence. Due to incompatibility between the couple, they started to live separately since 10.08.2017. Since the couple could not patch up their differences, they came to a conclusion that their marriage has broken down irretrievably. Hence they agreed to get separated by dissolving their marriage through mutual consent. The articles belonging to the parties were exchanged and the parties have no claim against each other. They do not have children out of their marriage.

They filed a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. The petition for mutual consent was presented on 12.12.2019.

3.1. After presenting the petition, the couple were asked to appear on

12.06.2020, after the expiry of the 6 months cooling period. However, the hearing was advanced from 12.06.2020 to 11.02.2020 and the matter was referred to mediation. The mediation was not fructified. Thereafter, the respondent did not appear before the Court to assert the consent already given by them for divorce. Despite the case was adjourned several times, the respondent did not come forward to give her consent for divorce. And the petition filed for divorce by mutual consent is being adjourned from time to time. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.5 of 2021, to enquire about the conduct and behaviour of the respondent for unilaterally withdrawing her consent. The said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

4. Mr.T.C.S.Raja Chockalingam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that subsequent to the presentation of petition for divorce by mutual consent, the petitioner returned all the articles belonging to the respondent in the presence of elders. A list of items returned was prepared and the respondent herself has acknowledged the receipt of the articles and her father, brother and cousin had signed as witnesses in the list and that has also been marked as Ex.P1; the acknowledgement given by the respondent is also marked as Ex.P2; despite receiving all the articles and giving an undertaking that the respondent will not have any future claim against the petitioner, she withdrew her consent for divorce by mutual consent; she has also given a complaint against the petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act on 19.03.2020, by making false allegations and demanding that the petitioner has to pay Rs.1,25,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and Rs.15,00,000/- towards Furniture; the above conduct of the respondent is nothing but a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the revision petitioner; even though the learned Judge of the Family Court is bound to make enquiries about the conduct of the respondent and to pass appropriate order, he refused to allow the petition; therefore, he requested this Court to allow this Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the matters of this nature, the Court has to presume the fraudulent conduct on the part of the respondent and pass appropriate orders. Reference was made to the some of the decisions of this Court passed in this connection. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner cited the decision of the Allahabad High Court held in the case of Poonam Sharma Vs. The District Judge, Family Court and Others reported in MANU/UP/1601/2007 or 2008 (1) ADJ 330, in support of his contention that a party is estopped fr