Dismissed

Hedwige Mary v. R.Murugan

Madras HC4 Sept 2023CRP(MD)/1767/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by a wife challenging the dismissal of her application to set aside an ex parte divorce decree. The Court observed that the petitioner accepted the husband's affidavit offer of maintenance and residence rights, effectively withdrawing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to reside at specified address; divorce decree confirmed; acknowledgment of receipt of Rs.5 lakhs.

Hedwige Mary Vs R.Murugan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.1767 of 2010

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1767 of 2010

Hedwige Mary

... Petitioner

-vs-

R.Murugan ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.171 of 2008 om S.M.O.P.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, dated 23.03.2010.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohan

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.S.Kanagarajan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging an

¶16

order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, wherein the petitioner's application to condone the delay of 627 days to set aside the exparte decree of divorce was dismissed.

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P(MD)No.1767 of 2010

¶20

2.According to the parties, they got married on 15.07.1991 and due to

¶21

some matrimonial disputes, the husband has filed S.M.O.P.No.1 of 2002 before the Subordinate Court, Nagercoil for the relief of divorce. Since the wife had not appeared before the Court, an exparte decree of divorce was granted in favour of the husband on 13.07.2006. After the exprate decree, the husband is said to have contracted second marriage.

¶22

3.The wife filed I.A.No.171 of 2008 seeking to condone the delay of 627 days in filing an application to set aside the said exparte decree. The said application was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed by the wife.

¶23

4.According to the respondent/ husband, he is paying maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and he submits that he will pay the same till his retirement.

¶24

5.The respondent has filed an affidavit to the effect that he had handed over the demand draft of Rs.2 lakhs in favour of his elder daughter, namely M.Ramanya and another Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

C.R.P(MD)No.1767 of 2010

¶28

the name of his younger daughter, M.Aisha Jyothi. The husband has also handed over a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.1 lakh in the name of his wife. In the said affidavit, the husband has also agreed that the wife shall continue to reside in Door No.5/182, VOC Street, Vadakkoor, Aralvaimozhi, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District till her lifetime.

¶29

6.In view of the said affidavit filed by the husband, the wife had agreed to withdraw the present revision petition. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has also made an endorsement to such effect.

¶30

7.In view of the affidavit filed by the husband, the following order is passed:

¶31

i) The Revision Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn;

¶32

ii) the wife shall continue to reside at Door No.5/182, VOC Street, Vadakkoor, Aralvaimozhi, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District till her life time;

¶33

iii) the divorce decree granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in S.M.O.P.No.1 of 2002 dated 13.07.2006 stands confirmed.

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P(MD)No.1767 of 2010

¶37

iv) The wife, who is the guardian of her two minor children

¶38

acknowledges receipt of Rs.5 lakhs through 3 (three) demand drafts.

¶39

No costs.

¶40

04.09.2023 (2/2)

¶41

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ta

¶42

¶43

The Sub Court, Nagercoil.

¶44

4/5

¶45

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

¶46

C.R.P(MD)No.1767 of 2010

¶47

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶48

¶49

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1767 of 2010

¶50

04.09.2023

¶51

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

¶52

5/5

Hedwige Mary v. R.Murugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hedwige Mary v. R.Murugan

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

Puraiyur Muslim Munnetra Sabai Vs Antony Francis @ Mookkan (Died)

T.Murugan Babu, Vs a.Narayanasamy,(Died)

N.Natarajan, Vs a/M.Jambukeeswarar

Tirunelveli Diocese Rep.Thro. Vs D.Arumai Nayagam Jebaraj

S.Muthukumar Vs S.Vasantha

Madha Trust, Vs D.Daniel Amaladoss