Decree for restitution of conjugal rights remained unexecuted; the Family Court ordered attachment under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. The husband's revision contended a subsequent ex parte divorce decree, later set aside, defeated execution. The High Court held setting aside restored the matrimonial position and dismissed the revision.
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.905 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.905 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.4616 of 2022
Ramaraja
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Latha
.. Respondent
Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in connected with E.P.No.46 of 2016 in O.P.No.45 of 2010 on the file of the learned V Additional Family Court at Chennai dated 17.09.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sabariesh
For Respondent : Mr.P.N.George Graham
ORDER
This is a revision which arises against the order passed in E.P.No.46
of 2016 in O.P.No.45 of 2010 on the file of the learned V Additional Family
Court at Chennai.
Page No 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.905 of 2022
rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A decree was passed in the said suit on 05.10.2010. Subsequently, the husband had filed a petition to divorce the wife in H.M.O.P.No.1151 of 2010 and an ex parte decree of divorce had been obtained. To set aside the said ex parte decree, an application was filed by the wife and the ex parte decree was also set aside on 28.11.2015.
Mr.P.N.George Graham, appearing on behalf of the respondent.
Page No 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.905 of 2022
had secured a ex parte decree and had got married subsequently. There is no point in pleading about the ex parte decree in the present situation because the ex parte decree that had been granted had been set aside by the very same Court which granted the decree. This restores the matrimonial position between the petitioner and the respondent. Once the position is restored, it is always open to the decree holder in O.P.No.45 of 2010 to execute a decree obtained by her on 05.10.2010.
of the Code of Civil Procedure directs that a decree in specific performance or for restitution of conjugal rights can be executed by attachment of the property. This is what the Execution Petition also seeks in the present case.
Page No 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.905 of 2022
in the proceedings will follow the cost in the execution. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.04.2024
mkn2 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Page No 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.905 of 2022
To
mkn2
The V Additional Family Court, Chennai
C.R.P.(PD)No.905 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.4616 of 2022
29.04.2024
Page No 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's order attaching property under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC for non-compliance with a restitution of conjugal rights decree was sustainable.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ramaraja
Latha
V.Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V.Lakshminarayanan
Parties & counsel
