Allowed

Selvadatchanamoorthy v. Shalini Gupta

Madras HC20 Feb 2019CRP/668/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the Family Court's dismissal of a Section 10 CPC application for stay. The Court held that the Family Court erred in refusing to number the application or pass reasoned orders, given the direct bearing of the matrimonial case on the restitution proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The docket order dismissing the application is set aside and the matter remitted to the Family Court to number the application, issue notice, and pass orders after hearing parties.

Selvadatchanamoorthy Vs Shalini Gupta — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.02.2019

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

C.R.P. (NPD) No.668 of 2019
and
C.M.P. No.4409 of 2019
R.Selvadatchanamoorthy ... Revision Petitioner
Vs.
Shalini Gupta ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside docket order passed on 24.01.2019 by the learned Family
Court Judge at Pondicherry in I.A.SR No.110 of 2019 in M.O.P.No.357 of
2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan
O R D E R

¶7

The above revision petition has been filed, challenging the order of

¶8

the Family Court Judge, Pondicherry, returning the application filed by the revision petitioner/husband, seeking stay of the proceedings in M.O.P. No.357 of 2015 pending on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry, till the disposal of the C.M.A. No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, as “not maintainable”.

¶9

2.The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

Petition are as follows :

¶13

3.The revision petitioner/husband had filed H.M.O.P. No.40 of 2013

¶14

on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore, for dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent/wife. By an order dated 19.01.2017, the said petition was allowed.

¶15

4.Challenging the same, the respondent/wife filed C.M.A.No.3 of 2018

¶16

on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore. Meanwhile, the respondent/wife had filed M.O.P. No.357 of 2015 on the file of the Family

¶17

Court, Pondicherry, for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶18

5.The order in C.M.A.No.3 of 2018 would have a direct bearing on the

¶19

proceedings in M.O.P. No.357 of 2015. For the said reason, the revision petitioner/husband had taken out the impugned application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶20

6.It is seen from the records that, at the outset, the learned Judge,

¶21

even without numbering the said application, has simply returned it with an endorsement “The petition is not maintainable”. Challenging the said order, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

7.It is unfortunate that the learned Judge has not even cared to consider the fact that the decision in C.M.A. No. 3 of 2018 would have a direct bearing on the proceedings in M.O.P. No.357 of 2015 and therefore, invoking the provisions under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revision petitioner had filed the impugned application. The stay of the proceedings in M.O.P. No.357 of 2015 has been sought for, only to avoid conflicting decisions, if any, being passed.

¶25

8.The learned Judge ought to have numbered the application and passed a reasoned award, instead of returning the application at the threshold, stating that it is not maintainable. The docket order dated 24.01.2019 is therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court, Pondicherry, to number the said application, issue notice to the respondent and pass orders thereon, after hearing the parties.

¶26

9.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶27

10.The original impugned application in I.A.SR.No.110 of 2019 in M.O.P. No.357 of 2015, has now been returned to the learned counsel for

¶28

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

¶31

mkn

¶32

the revision petitioner, for which, he has made an endorsement in the petition to the effect that he has received the original impugned application.

¶33

20.02.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
Note : Issue order copy today, i.e. on 20.02.2019
mkn

¶34

C.R.P. (NPD) No.668 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.4409 of 2019

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

Selvadatchanamoorthy v. Shalini Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvadatchanamoorthy v. Shalini Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pasamalar Vs Balasubramaniam

A.S.Fazul Rahman Vs R.Subramanian

N.Kannan Vs a.Sheik Nazir

Venkatesan Vs Nithya

T. Lalitha Vs J. Ganesh

Lalitha Vs Mrs.Jayalakshmi