Revision petition against an order in a restitution of conjugal rights proceeding dismissed for default. The court held that while property determination is possible, no order would help reunion in this case, dismissing the petition.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is 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: 15.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.3583 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
Mrs.R.Saranya W/o.Ranjith Gowdhaman
... Petitioner
vs
Mr.G.Ranjith Gowdhaman S/o.M.Gowdhaman
... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and Decreetal Order dated 29.06.2015 made in I.A.No.602 of 2014 in H.M.O.P.No.478 of 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Subordinate Judge at Tambaram.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kavitha Rameshwar For Respondent : Mr.S.Kumaresan *****
O R D E R
This revision arises against order of learned Subordinate Judge,
Tambaram, passed in I.A.No.602 of 2014 in H.M.O.P.No.478 of 2013 on
29.06.2015.
2
respondent.
Civil Revision Petition, the case in H.M.O.P.No.478 of 2013, an action moved by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights, was dismissed for default and a petition seeking restoration of the same is pending.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on certain judgments,
submits that rights in respect of properties held either individually or jointly by the parties may be determined under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is her contention that even while passing an order of dismissal for default, the Court below still could have passed an order determining the rights of the petitioner under section 27 of the Act. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the dismissed for default would not stand in the way of this Court passing an order on merits in the present case.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the counter filed
in the present petition, the respondent has not denied his holding jewellery
3
belonging to the petitioner.
6.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is not necessary for
this Court to go through the counter filed before the Court below.
jewellery belonging to her are held by the respondent / husband while it is the contention of the respondent/ husband that such was not the case and that petitioner had taken away her belongings. In such circumstances, this Court
finds no error in the order Court below informing that any order presently made on the petition before it will not help reunion of the parties. It would be
open to Court below to decide upon the issue in keeping with Sec. 27 of the
Hindu Marriage Act should situation demand.
The Civil Revision Petition, accordingly, is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.06.2016.
Index:yes/no Internet:yes nvi
To
4
The Subordinate Judge, Tambaram
C.T.SELVAM, J nvi/kpr
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.3583 of 2015
15.06.2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a dismissal for default bars the High Court from passing an order determining property rights under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
certain judgmentsReferred¶24
Mrs.R.Saranya W/o.Ranjith Gowdhaman
Mr.G.Ranjith Gowdhaman S/o.M.Gowdhaman
C.T.Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
