Dismissed

M. Sabarimala, v. R. Veeraraghavan

Madras HC19 Sept 2022CRP(MD)/954/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging adverse observation against counsel during cross-examination in a matrimonial suit. High Court held that questions were relevant based on plaint averments and dismissed the petition, directing deletion of specific remarks against counsel from the record.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed, but Family Court directed to delete specific remarks made against petitioner's counsel.

M. Sabarimala, Vs R. Veeraraghavan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(MD)No.954 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 19.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(MD)No.954 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.3787 of 2022

M.Sabarimala

... Petitioner

R.Veeraraghavan ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order of the learned Family Court, Sivagangai dated 08.04.2022 passed while recording the deposition of cross examination of revision respondent / PW1 in HMOP.No.201 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai by eschewing the following portion recorded by the learned Family Court Judge, in the cross examination of PW1 dated 08.04.2022 in HMOP.No.201 of 2020 in adverse to the revision petitioner.

¶12

[Prayer amended vide Court order dated 28.04.2022 passed in

¶13

CMP(MD)No.4050 of 2022]

¶14

1/5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

CRP(MD)No.954 of 2022

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondent : Mr.N.Sathish Babu

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the observation of the trial Court made as against the Counsel in the evidence of PW1 in HMOP.No.201 of 2020.

¶20

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶21

the respondent and the petitioner are husband and wife. The respondent filed a petition in HMOP.No.201 of 2020 for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Sivagangai. Evidence of PW1 was recorded on 08.04.2022 and during the course, the revision petitioner's counsel has cross examined the respondent/ husband with regard to the care taken by the respondent/ husband towards the child, which was objected by the respondent's counsel and the court has also warned that the Counsel has to ask only relevant questions. As against such warning, this civil revision petition is filed.

¶22

2/5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

CRP(MD)No.954 of 2022

¶25

3.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

¶26

4.A perusal of the deposition dated 08.04.2022 reveals

¶27

that the questions with regard to the saree bought for the betrothal, the petitioner's current employment, jewels gifted by him to the respondent for marriage, the care taken by the petitioner towards the child do not disclose that any irrelevant question was raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner / wife. Further the questions were asked only based on the averments contained in the plaint only. However observation made by the Court would affect the counsel. Therefore, this trial Court is directed to delete the following remarks made against the Counsel;

¶28

“vjph;kDjhuuh; jug;g[ tHf;Fiu"h; mtrpakhd nfs;tpfis nfl;f ntz;Lk; vd vr;rhpf;fg;gLfpwhh;/ mth; vd;d nfs;tpfs; nfl;lhh; vd;gij khz;g[kpF cah;ePjpkd;wk; g[hpe;Jbfhs;s ntz;Lk; vd;gjw;fhfnt KGtJkhf gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ ,dpa[k; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;g[ tHf;Fiu"h; kdr;rhd;wpw;F tplg;gLfpwJ/ 19/04/2022k; njjp tHf;F bjhlh;ghd nfs;tpfis nfl;f ntz;Lk;/ tHf;F tprhuizf;F xj;JiHf;f ntz;Lk; vd mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/ tHf;F tprhuizf;F xj;JiHf;f ntz;Lk; vd

¶29

3/5

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

CRP(MD)No.954 of 2022

¶32

mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/ tHf;F tprhuiz 19/04/2022k; njjpf;F xj;jpitf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ”

¶33

6.In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶34

19.09.2022

¶35

dsk

¶36

To The Judge, Family Court, Sivagangai.

¶37

4/5

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

CRP(MD)No.954 of 2022

¶40

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶41

dsk

¶42

CRP(MD)No.954 of 2022

¶43

19.09.2022

¶44

5/5

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M. Sabarimala, v. R. Veeraraghavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sabarimala, v. R. Veeraraghavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seyad Shariat Finance Limited Vs Vallinayagam

T. Kannan, Vs v. Rajesh Kanna

Jain Melord, Vs N. Sunil

Meena.S Vs Sundar Raj

Sundarraj Vs S. Meena

C. Selvapriya Vs T. Parthasarathy