The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the Family Court’s order rejecting a wife’s application to re-open evidence in a divorce proceeding. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding that the application was an attempt to protract proceedings filed after a seven-year delay.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.3097 of 2015
Vijayarani W/o.Manavalan
... Petitioner
vs
Manavalan S/o.Ranganathan
... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of learned Judge, Family Court, Villupuram, passed in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in I.A.No.7 of 2014 in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2014 on 05.05.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh For Respondent : Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna *****
O R D E R
This revision arises against the order of learned Judge, Family Court, Villupuram, passed in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in I.A.No.7 of 2014 in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2014 on 05.05.2015.
Respondent/husband filed a petition seeking divorce. Petitioner/wife has filed
2
I.A.No.7 of 2014 in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2014 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Villupuram, seeking enhancement of interim maintenance in a sum of Rs.1,500/-. Upon completion of examination of witnesses on either side, the evidence was closed and the application was at the stage of arguments. In such circumstances, the petitioner/wife filed I.A.No.8 of 2014 seeking re-opening of the evidence on her side for the purpose of examination of additional witnesses. The Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed the application. Hence, this revision.
except stating that some witnesses are to be examined to establish her case, nothing has been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application. No explanation has been afforded by the petitioner why she has not examined the witnesses earlier. Further, the application is pending more than seven years and at this stage, the petitioner has filed the present application only to protract the proceedings. This Court finds no error in the order under challenge.
3
The Civil Revision Petition, accordingly, is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.06.2016
Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm To The Judge, Family Court, Villupuram.
4
C.T.SELVAM, J
gm
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.3097 of 2015
21.06.2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court committed any error by dismissing the application for re-opening of evidence after a long pendency.
Whether the delay of over seven years in filing the application justifies dismissal without examining the grounds for delay.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijayarani
Manavalan
C.TSelvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
