Advocates:
['M/S G PRABHU RAJADURAI', '', 'K CHENGIZ KHAN', 'TYPED SET FILED USR DT', 'ALDDL TYPED SET FILED USR', 'Written Submission filed SR DT', 'M/S R PRAKASH']

1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on :22.03.2021

Pronounced on : 30.04.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

CRP(PD)(MD)No.762 of 2020

and

CMP(MD).No.5104 of 2020

Indhumathi

...Revision petitioner/Respondent

Vs

Prithviraj

... Respondent/ Petitioner

PRAYER: 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.

For Petitioner

: Mr.G.Prabhurajadurai

For Respondent

: Mr.R.Prakash

**********

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

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

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 RUR20110