High Court has power under Art.227 of Constitution to reject original petition.

(Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the notice issued in HMOP No. 706 of 2004 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.)

The respondent in HMOP No. 706 of 2004 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai has filed this revision under Article 227 of The Constitution of India. The HMOP No. 706 of 2004 was filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights and for other reliefs.

2. The case of the respondent herein is that he married the revision petitioner on 15-03-1992 according to Hindu rites and customs in the presence of relatives and elders and the marriage function was held at the residence of the revision petitioner herein at Madras; that after the marriage, they lived together at Madras for three days; that on 18-03-1992, the respondent went to Addankivaripalam to attend his personal work, later, he came back to Madras on 19-03-1992; that the petitioner herein refused to live with him without any reasons; that subsequently, both of them went to Addankivaripalam and after two days the revision petitioner came back to Madras; that the respondent waited for the petitioner, but she did not turn up, hence, he issued a notice on 08-08-1992 and the same was also received, but no reply was sent by her; that the respondent has filed similar Petitions under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 22-12-1994 as the dispute was settled mutually; that the petitioner and the respondent lived together as wife and husband continuously from 22-12-1994 to 17-01-2003; that on 18-01-2003, the respondent came to his native place where he met with an accident and stayed back and despite his notice dated 12-12-2003, she has not joined him, hence, he filed the present HMOP.

3. The trial court issued notice to the revision petitioner herein and she filed this revision petition praying to reject the above said HMOP.

4. The case of the revision petitioner is that she is an actress in Hindi movies, having lot of fans throughout India and they used to write letters to her; that the previous records shows that the respondent herein has filed similar case against Mrs. Priyanka Gandhi Gothra, daughter of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mrs. Jayapradha, a film actress-cum-politician with an intention to gain cheap publicity in print and visual media; that after filing the said HMOP, the media has given wide publicity to him; that the averments relating to the alleged marriage, venue and the subsequent events were all false and imaginary and not on factual basis; that the petitioner was not aware of the respondent at all; that the trial court was used as a tool by the respondent herein for gaining cheap publicity; that the trial court, without application of mind issued notice to the revision petitioner to appear; that the trial court failed to even look into the documents filed by the respondent and mechanically issued notice to her; that the documents filed along with the HMOP are crystal clear that they are not genuine, cooked up for filing the present case; that in any event, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is unsustainable in Law.

5. This Court, in CMP No. 7031 of 2004 in CRP No. 712 of 2004 granted interim stay on 23-06-2004. The respondent herein has filed VCMP No. 14011 of 2005 on 22-08-2005 reiterating the allegations, admitting the cases filed by him against the other two ladies, whose names were mentioned supra. It is further alleged by the respondent that one of such lady's family members offered Rs.50 lakhs to him but he refused to receive; that the said lady, though willing to join him, she was prevented, with the result, she attempted suicide; that the other lady offered Rs.25 lakhs to withdraw the case and also offered a State level post in the party and the same was also refused by him; that he further admitted that the case filed by the respondent against one of the ladie