'Can't Have Another Trial Before The Registry': Madras HC Directs Family Court To Number Wife's Plea Without Asking For Evidence That Couple Are Hindus

Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that though the husband had filed a divorce petition claiming that the couples were Christians while the wife had filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights claiming that the couple were Hindus, the issue had to be decided by the court at the time of disposal. The court added that if proof is demanded at the time of numbering, it would lead to a trial before the registry and another trial before the court which could not be allowed.

“This issue necessarily has to be addressed by the Court at the time of disposal of either the I.D.O.P or H.M.O.P. To demand proof at the time of numbering, I feel that it would put the petitioner in a difficult position. This is because there cannot be a trial before the Registry and another trial after the respondent files his counter and issues are framed by the Court,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a Civil Revision Petition filed by the wife against the refusal of the Principal Family Court to number her petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

She submitted that she and her husband entered into matrimony on March 23, 2011, at Bhavani Amman Koil, Mettupalayam, Tiruvallur District. She submitted that from the wedlock, the couple had two children born on November 16, 2011.

The court was informed that the husband had initiated a petition for divorce on the premise that the couple got married as per Christian rites and customs. When a summons was served on the wife in the above case, she appeared before the court and said that the couple had not gotten married as per Christian rites and customs but in a simple manner. A proof affidavit was also filed in support of the case.

The wife then presented a petition for restitution of conjugal rights invoking Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The petition was however returned by the Registry questioning how the petition would be maintainable since the wife was a Christian. The wife re-presented the petition stating that the couple were Hindus and to prove the same, she also submitted the Transfer Certificate of both the parties. Even then, the registry refused to number the petition.

The court noted that on perusal of the documents, it was clear that the wife belonged to the Hindu-Kallar community and the husband belonged to the Hindu-Adi Dravidar community. The court also noted that the wife, in her plea, had contended that the husband's plea was based on a fake marriage date and fake marriage invitation. The court thus wondered how the Registry could again return the plaint. The court remarked that when the wife had specifically pleaded that the husband's plea was based on fabricated documents, asking her to prove that the couple were Hindus was erroneous.

The court also remarked that a court should act upon the averments made in the petition for seizing jurisdiction and should not play the role of a litigant in the proceedings. the court thus directed the Principal Family court to number the wife's petition if it was otherwise in order.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs.Shaikh Mehrunnisa Kasim

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 362

Case Title: R.Gnana Sundari v T.Yesuraj

Case No: C.R.P.(PD).No.3547 of 2024