Civil Revision Petition challenging a Sub Court non-speaking order removing jurisdiction over a divorce petition. The Court held the Sub Court had jurisdiction based on marriage and residence details and directed the trial to proceed.
Civil revision petition allowed; direction to Sub Judge, Sivakasi to number and proceed with the divorce petition.
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.
CRP(MD)No.1923 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 22.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(MD)No.1923 of 2022
T.M.Ramesh Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs
S.Indu @ Indhulakshmi ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the non-speaking order of return in HMOP.No. Unnumbered / 2022 dated 23.06.2022 and direct the Sub Court, Sivakasi to number the HMOP.No in S.R.No.4351 of 2022 and allow the civil revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
ORDER
The civil revision petition is filed as against the
docket order dated 23.06.2022 passed in HMOP No.Unnumbered / 2022 by the learned Sub Judge, Sivakasi.
1/4
CRP(MD)No.1923 of 2022
2.The petitioner has filed a petition under
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Sub Court, Sivakasi for divorce, but it was returned by
the trial Court on 27.06.2022 that the petitioner is residing at Thiruthangal, the respondent is residing in Chennai and the marriage was held at Chennai and therefore, Sub Court, Sivakasi is not having territorial jurisdiction to try the petition. It was re-presented on 28.06.2022 that the petitioner permanently resides at Thiruthangal and after the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent lived together at Thiruthangal and the children are also residing with them at Thiruthangal. Again the petition was returned on 30.06.2022 that the petitioner has not produced any
document to substantiate that he has resided at Thiruthangal. The petitioner has re-presented it on
30.06.2022 along with an affidavit that after the marriage they lived together at Thiruthangal. Once again it was
returned on 22.07.2022 that the Sub Court, Sivakasi is not having jurisdiction to try the case. Aggrieved over the same the petitioner is before this Court.
2/4
CRP(MD)No.1923 of 2022
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is permanently residing at Thiruthangal and after the marriage also the petitioner and the respondent resided at Thiruthangal in the matrimonial home and therefore, the trial Court ought to have taken the petition on file and proceeded further.
4.The petitioner claims that after the marriage the
petitioner and the respondent resided at Thiruthangal till he left for job in abroad and the children were also residing with them. Therefore, this civil revision petition is allowed with a direction to the learned Sub Judge, Sivakasi to number the petition filed by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order and proceed further. No costs.
22.09.2022
dsk
Note : Registry shall return the original papers
To
The Sub Judge, Sivakasai.
3/4
CRP(MD)No.1923 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
CRP(MD)No.1923 of 2022
22.09.2022
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Court at Sivakasi has territorial jurisdiction to try the petitioner's divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T.M. Ramesh Kumar
S. Indu @ Indhulakshmi
B. Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
