C.R.P.PD.No.592 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 20/6/2023

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

Civil Revision Petition PD No.592 of 2023

a n d

C.M.P.No.4733 of 2023

Satish Kumar Banukumar

...

Petitioner

Vs

Swarnarekha Gnanasivam

...

Respondent

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

against the fair and decreetal order of the V Additional Principal Family

Court, Chennai, made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.P.No.2168 of 2021 dated

9/2/2023.

For Petitioner

...

Mr.V.P.Raman

For respondent

...

Mr.Arul Mozhi

- - - - -

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/husband against

whom, the respondent/wife has filed O.P.No.2168 of 2021, on the file of

the learned V Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, seeking

divorce.

1/7

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

C.R.P.PD.No.592 of 2023

2. The petitioner/husband has filed an application, in I.A.No.3 of

2022, seeking to set aside the ex parte order, passed against him, on

23/11/2021, in O.P.No.2168 of 2021 filed by his wife. After full fledged

enquiry, the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the

present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.Arul Mozhi, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Perused the materials available on record.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submitted

that the trial Court has failed to consider that the petitioner/husband is

residing in USA and that notice in O.P.No.2168 of 2021 has not been

served on him. It is also submitted that proof of delivery of notice, dated

6/10/2021 filed by the respondent/wife, which was obtained from USA

postal service, did not have the signature of the petitioner/husband to

show that he has received the notice.

2/7

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

C.R.P.PD.No.592 of 2023

7. It is further submitted that letter issued by the Irvine Company

Apartment Communities, would go to show that the respondent/wife has

filed a false affidavit, basing on which, the petitioner/husband was set ex

parte, on 23/11/2021. It is also submitted in the grounds of appeal that

the respondent has played fraud on the Court by filing a fabricated

document, misleading the Court in respect of service of notice to the

petitioner/husband.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent vehemently submitted that notice to the petitioner was sent to

the Chennai address which was declined by the father of the petitioner,

thereby, the notice is deemed to have been served on account of declining

by the father. In respect of service of the notice to the US address, it is

submitted that the petitioner/respondent has filed a letter addressed by the

US postal service to the effect that notice was served at the front desk of

the Apartment, at 12.49 p.m., on 2^nd September 2021, where the

petitioner admittedly lives in one of the Apartment and that the person at

the front desk has also signed after receiving of the summons cover

containing the notice and the signature of the recipient also reflected in

the letter given to the petitioner. The tracking details also confirm that

3/7

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

C.R.P.PD.No.592 of 2023

the cover containing the notice was delivered in the address of the

petitioner. Basing on the said information furnished by the US postal

service and tracking information of service of notice, the petitioner was

set ex parte.

9. The documents filed by the respondent before the Court in

O.P.No.2168 of 2021 are tracking record in respect of the delivery of

summons and also the letter given by US Postal service. The respondent

has informed the Court basing on these two documents. These notices

were delivered on the respondent. The petitioner, however, has filed an

affidavit stating that the respondent