High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 seeking direction to the Subordinate Judge to number and entertain a Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act application. The Court upheld the lower court’s decision, noting the absence of address proofs to establish jurisdiction.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; application returned by lower Court stands maintained.
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.No.760 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P. (PD) No.760 of 2021
S.R.Sridhar ...Petitioner
Vs
G.Dhivya ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram to entertain unnumbered H.M.O.P.SR.No.1368 of 2021 and number the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to direct the learned Subordinate
Judge, Rasipuram to entertain un-numbered H.M.O.P.SR.No.1368 of 2021 and number the same.
C.R.P.No.760 of 2021
Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The learned Sub-Judge, Rasipuram returned the said plaint without even numbering, stating that both the petitioner and the respondent’s residential addresses does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court below. Further, a time period of one month was
also given to the parties to file the proof of their addresses.
not to have taken into account the temporary address where the parties shifted. The trial Court ought to have gone into the fact that Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act emphasis the parties to the marriage last resided together and hence, the Court below has jurisdiction to entertain the restitution application.
C.R.P.No.760 of 2021
materials available on record.
Court below. The petitioner and the respondent herein have not produced
their address proof to prove their case and hence, the trial Court was right
in returning the application. Hence, I do not find any merits in the present
Civil Revision Petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs.
01.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
sbn
To
The Subordinate Court,
Rasipuram.
C.R.P.No.760 of 2021
sbn
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
C.R.P. (PD) No.760 of 2021
01.04.2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the Subordinate Judge to number and entertain a restitution of conjugal rights application filed by a husband in his wife’s absence.
Whether jurisdiction can be established based on the petitioner's permanent address when address proofs were not produced.
Whether the trial Court correctly dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction due to missing address proofs.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
S.R.Sridhar
G.Dhivya
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
