ORDER

These Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the petition in H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2020 on the file of the Prinicipal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam.

2. The short facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:-

2.1. The petitioner would aver among other things that the respondent herein was a schoolmate and on the strength of that relationship, it is alleged that he was continuously stalking her over phone and in person. Having fed up with the continuos harassment, she informed about the harassment to her parents. Irked over it, the respondent filed a police complaint and thereafter, he filed HMOP No.99 of 2020 for restitution of conjugal rights. she was summoned to appear before the Court on 09.10.2020 to answer the plaint. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the respondent had created two fake documents to show that the marriage had taken place between them. viz., a purported wedding invitation and an alleged receipt issued by temple. Both are proved to be not valid in the eye of law. Stating all these facts, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated supra.

3. The respondent would contend through his counter affidavit that this Court cannot be used as a trial Court and no evidence could be marked nor there is any provision for putting any person or witness in the witness box and take chief and cross examine to bring out the truth. Further, the respondent denies all the allegations levelled against him and there has been no occasion to defame anybody including this petitioner and pray for dismissal of this Civil Revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner wants to pursue her carrier peacefully and the respondent herein wants to harass her either one way or the other and thereby stall the carrier of the petitioner by creating fake marriage documents. Though the petitioner claims in paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner and the respondent has been known to each other for more than one decade not even an iota of evidence is marked even before the Court below as well as before this Court to prove that the alleged marriage had taken place as claimed by the respondent and therefore, he prays for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

4.1. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments of this court:-

(a) In the case of A.Sreedevi Vs Vicharapu Ramakrishna Gowd reported in 2006-1-L.W.398. (b)In the case of S.Balakrishnan Pandiyan Vs. R.Ram Prasath reported in 2014-5-L.W.207.

4.2. In both the judgments, validity of the marriage is discussed as per the Hindu Marriage Act and more particularly, in the case of S.Balakrishnan Pandiyan (cited supra), the Division Bench of this Court, has elaborately discussed about Section 7-A of the solemnization of marriage and disapproved the practise of the marriage held in the present case on hand.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner's father is an influential person and by drawing the attention of this Court in paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit, he would submit that though the petitioner lodges complaints in connection with marriage dispute in RUR201106556 dated 26.09.2020 and CSR receipt No. 269 of 2020 dated 24.07.2020, no action has been taken by the respondent police. The respondent wants that the trial to be conducted so that the truth will come out and to sum up, he prays for dismissing of this petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is the claim of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was conducted in the presence of respective friends by changing garlands and rings besides tying thali. However, not a single photograph of the alleged marriage is produced and even during the course of the enquiry the respondent could not produce any such photo of the alleged