Civil revision filed challenging the Family Court's refusal to examine the Registrar of Marriage. The court found no illegal disparity as the registrar was not pleaded. Ordered completion of trial within six months.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Trial directed to be completed within six months of receipt of the order.
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.
C.R.P.(PD)No.1954 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(PD) No.1954 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Veeravermalle ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Dr.M.Veeran
2. Mangaiammalle ... Respondents
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decretal order dated
06.06.2014 passed in I.A.No.328 of 2014 in O.S.No.14 of 2006 by the
learned Family Court Judge, Pondicherry.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Balavijayan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.M.Arunkumar For Mr.K.S.Karthick Raj For R2 : Notice served
Page 1 of 4
C.R.P.(PD)No.1954 of 2015
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal
order dated 06.06.2014 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Pondicherry, in I.A.No.328 of 2014 in O.S.No.14 of 2006, thereby partly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner to examine the witness as P.W.4.
the witness No.4 viz., the Registrar of Marriage. Ex.A.6 is a notice of
Page 2 of 4
C.R.P.(PD)No.1954 of 2015
intended marriage between the respondents 1 & 2 herein. On perusal of plaint, the petitioner did not plead about the notice of intended marriage issued by the witness No.4. Therefore, there cannot be any evidence without pleadings. Hence, the Court below rightly rejected the application insofar as the witness No.4 is concerned and permits the petitioner to examine the
witnesses No. 1 to 3 and 5. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below.
However, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2006, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.01.2021
Internet : Yes Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
Page 3 of 4
C.R.P.(PD)No.1954 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
04.01.2021
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in refusing to examine the Registrar of Marriage as a witness.
Whether there is a need to complete the trial within six months of the revision order.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Veeravermalle
Dr.M.Veeran
Mangaiammalle
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
