Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14112
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR
SYED NISAR – Appellant
Versus
NISHA – Respondent
The court highlighted that Talaq must be for a reasonable cause and preceded by attempts at reconciliation, and this determination is for trial and not pre-emptively decided.
Headnote:
Article 227 - Civil Revision - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Summary of decisions regarding abuse of process of court due to invalid talaq notices and requirements for maintaining validity in matrimonial matters.
Fact of the Case:
A Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 contesting two Talaq notices issued by the defendant and seeking dismissal of the plaint. The plaintiff claimed the notices were illegal and void due to harassment and lack of reasonable cause for divorce.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's assertion of the plaintiff suppressing a third Talaq notice did not invalidate her claim against the first two notices, noting that the issues of whether the notices were valid and the connected plea of limitation were matters for trial.
Issues: Whether the plaint challenging the Talaq notices should be struck off under Article 227 due to an alleged abuse of process and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the invocation of Article 227 must show clear abuse of process, and the validity of the divorce and related issues must be determined at trial.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with costs against the defendant.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking orders to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.
28 of 2023, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.
2. The revision petitioner is the defendant. The respondent as plaintiff has filed the above suit claiming declaration that the Talaq notices issued by the defendant dated 05.09.2018 and 04.10.2018 as against the plaintiff are illegal and void and to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.
3. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and the defendant got married on 16.04.2006 at Faiz Mahal, Egmore, Chennai and that due to their wedlock, they were blessed with one female child and two male children. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff and the defendant as usual in the matrimonial matters have been raising allegations and counter allegations against each other.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant and her in-laws had demanded more dowry and causing harassment since her marriage, that the defendant having an eye over the property of the plaintiff's mother, had assaulted the plaintiff brutally on several occasions causing injuries both physically and mentally, that the plaintiff was driven out of matrimonial home along with her children, that the plaintiff came to Madurai along with her children in 2018, that the defendant had sent a legal notice dated 18.06.2018 for reunion by making false averments and that the plaintiff had immediately sent a reply notice dated 03.07.2018 narrating the real facts.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant without any reasonable cause and by suppressing the real facts, had sent two Talaq notices on 05.09.2018 and 04.10.2018 respectively, that the plaintiff after the receipt of the first Talaq notice, sent a reply specifically indicating that the Talaq was invalid and void, that the defendant had forcibly taken away the second male child from Madurai in the absence of the plaintiff and went to Chennai, that the plaintiff, after coming to know about the incident and since the defendant refused to hand over the child, preferred a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Harbour on 13.01.2019 and that since the defendant had refused to hand over the child, the police officials advised both the parties to work out their remedy before the Court, that the defendant in the Talaq notices have stated that some of the mediation and conciliation process were held in the presence of jamath people ie., Asad, Hussain, Syed Nizam and Hafizuddin, that the plaintiff is not aware of the above said persons, that the defendant with an intention to contract second marriage, issued the above said two Talaq notices and that the talaq notices issued without any reasonable cause and without having any attempts for mediation and conciliation between the parties are invalid and void and that therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit.
6. The petitioner/defendant, after receiving the suit summons, has approached this Court with the above revision directly for striking out the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that the plaintiff alone had deserted the defendant without any justifiable cause and refused to live with him, that the defendant had attempted several mediation and reconciliation efforts, but the same was rejected by her through her reply dated 03.07.2018, that the defendant had sent a rejoinder to the reply notice dated 03.07.2018, that the plaintiff due to ill advise and malafide intention preferred complaints against the defendant in All Women Police Station, Madurai and after appearance before the police personnel, the defendant was let off, that thereafter, the defendant was constrained to issue first Talaq notice on 05.09.2018, second Talaq notice on 04.10.2018 and the third Talaq notice on 06.11.2018, that the plaintiff had r
