IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Orders reserved on Orders pronounced on

16.08.2021 03.09.2021 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN C.R.P.(PD) No.513 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.4431 of 2021 Dr.R.Veerakumar ... Petitioner Vs

1. V.Elizabeth @ Victoria Elizabeth

2. The Director of Medical & Rural Health Services Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

3. The Secretary to Government Health Department St. George Fort Chennai – 600 009.

4. The Principal Accountant General (A & E)

Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 11.01.2021 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner .. Mr.R.R.Shivakumar for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondent-1 .. M/s.B.Kalarani For Respondents 2,3 & 4.. No appearance

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated

11.01.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2019 on the file of learned V Additional Family Court, Chennai.

2. The first respondent, as the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.116 of

2019 against the petitioner/first defendant seeking the relief of declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, who is first defendant in the suit. The case of the first respondent is that she is a widow and through her first husband, she had a female child named Latha and male child named Suresh Kumar. The petitioner, who was working as a Doctor at Government Hospital, Chennai, befriended with the first respondent and proposed to marry her. The first respondent was initially reluctant to accept the proposal for the reason that she is a widow and has a daughter and son, who is mentally retarded. The petitioner promised to take care of her and her children born through her first husband, as his children. Believing the words of the petitioner, first respondent consented for the marriage and their marriage was celebrated on 10.08.1987 at the first respondent's house. Through this wedlock, a female child named V.Sindhuja was born to them. The petitioner had also executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the first respondent in 2004. From 2005, there was a change in the behaviour of the petitioner. He started to have illegal relationship with several ladies. He cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the first respondent. Now, he is disowning the first respondent. First respondent, as the wife, is entitled to maintenance and other benefits. Therefore, this suit was filed.

3. After entering appearance, the petitioner herein filed a petition in I.A.No.1 of 2019 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint. This petition was resisted by the first respondent herein. The learned V Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai after considering the rival submissions and materials, dismissed the petition among other grounds that there are triable issues involved in this suit. Against the said order of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that first respondent's first husband's name is K.S.Chandrasekaran. He died only on 19.07.2016. Assuming and without admitting that there was marriage between the petitioner and first respondent, that marriage is illegal in law. There was no such marriage, as alleged by the first respondent, has taken place as per Hindu rights and customs. First respondent is a Christian and there is no material found to show that she converted as a Hindu before the alleged marriage with the petitioner. This suit is filed only to blackmail the petitioner and get unjust enrichment. It is a clear abuse of process of law. Contracting second marriage during the life time of first marriage is against law, especially under Section 5(1) of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, this suit is barred under law. Without considering these legal aspects, learned trial Judge has dismissed the petition. Ther