SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 39287

MADRAS HIGH COURT
AISHWARYA SRIDHAR – Appellant
Versus
HARIHARA VENKATARAMAN BALASURAMANIAN – Respondent
CRP 2310 2023



C.R.P.No.2310 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.10.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

C.R.P.No.2310 of 2023

Aishwarya Sridhar

Rep. by her mother as her power of attorney holder

S.Bhuvaneswari

21/9, Shanthiniketan Apartment,

Eshwardoss Street,

Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005.

... Petitioner

Vs.

Mr.Harihara Venkataraman Balasubramanian

Rep. by his father as his Power of Attorney Holder

N.Balasubramanian,

No.103, Balaji Illam

Srinivasa Nagar,

1st East Street,

Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli - 627 011.

... Respondent

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, to direct the Learned Presiding Officer, Principal Family Court,

Chennai, to receive the petitioner's and respondent's joined petition for

dissolution of their marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage

Act 1955 that was solemnized on 10.07.2016 under mutual consent and

for implementing the terms of compromise on 13.12.2022 and ascertain

1/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.2310 of 2023

the consent of the parties hereto virtually, with the parties being identified

by respective counsel and to pass a decree in terms of the compromise

dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent

dispensing with the 6 months waiver period.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash

Senior Counsel

For M/s.M.Karthikeyani

For Respondent : Mr.B.Vijay

For Mr.A.R.Balaji

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction to the

Learned Presiding Officer, Principal Family Court, Chennai, to receive

the petitioner's and respondent's joined petition for dissolution of their

marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 that was

solemnized on 10.07.2016 under mutual consent and for implementing

the terms of compromise on 13.12.2022 and ascertain the consent of the

parties hereto virtually, with the parties being identified by respective

counsel and to pass a decree in terms of the compromise dissolving the

marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dispensing with the 6

months waiver period.

2/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.2310 of 2023

2. The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. Their

marriage was solemnized on 10.07.2016 at Virugambakam, Chennai -

600 091. Due to misunderstanding between them, they got separated in

the year 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.5026 of 2022

for restitution of conjugal rights, which petition was numbered after the

direction of this Court in C.R.P.No.2553 of 2021. The respondent filed a

petition for divorce after the HMOP filed by the petitioner for restitution

of conjugal rights, but it was numbered earlier and therefore, it was

assigned the number H.M.O.P.No.152 of 2019. The petitioner and

respondent thereafter had arrived at a compromise on 13.12.2022. In

accordance with the terms of the compromise, they withdrew the

respective petitions before the Family Court namely H.M.O.P.No.152 of

2019 and H.M.O.P.No.5026 of 2022 through their above said power of

attorneys respectively. Thereafter, on 16.06.2023, the power of attorney

of the respondent namely his father and the power of attorney of the

petitioner namely her mother appeared before the Family Court and filed

an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the

Hindu Marriage Act. However, the Learned Presiding Officer, Family

Court has stated that at least one of the parties should be present while

the other can appear on virtual mode. Since the petitioner is residing in

3/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.2310 of 2023

USA, she is constrained to move this revision petition before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, both the

petitioner and respondent are residing in USA. If they travelled to India to

present the petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top