Allowed

K.Dharanidharan v. R.Vasanthakumari

Madras HC16 Dec 2024CRP/978/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition filed to set aside a Family Court order directing the return of a gold thali chain. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the order, holding it was passed without evidence as the respondent had previously admitted receiving all jewels in divorce proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 04.07.2023 directing the petitioner to return the 3 1/2 sovereigns of gold thali chain is set aside.

K.Dharanidharan Vs R.Vasanthakumari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRP.No.978 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated 16.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRP.No.978 of 2024

¶7

K.Dharanidhran ... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

R.Vasanthakumari ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 04.07.2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in F.C.O.P.No.211 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court Judge, Chengalpattu.

¶11

For petitioner : M/s.D.Sujatha For Respondent : No appearance

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Challenging the impugned order directing the revision petitioner to return 3

¶14

½ sovereigns of gold thali chain under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the present revision has been filed.

¶15

Page 1 / 5

¶16

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

¶17

CRP.No.978 of 2024

¶18

An application has been filed by the respondent on the ground that at the time of her marriage, her parents had given her 3 ½ sovereigns of gold thali chain. On 18.03.2022, the petitioner and his parents forced her to remove her thali and put it in the milk bowl. With no other option, she put the thali in the milk bowl and she was forced to leave the matrimonial house. Hence, the respondent seeks for the return of the 3 ½ sovereigns of gold thali chain. The said application has been opposed by the revision petitioner denying the removal of thali. According to the petitioner, after legal notice sent to the respondent/wife, she came to matrimonial home and fought with them and she has not brought any jewel. The Trial Court, by order dated 04.07.2023 allowed that application directing the petitioner herein to return the 3 ½ sovereigns of gold thali chain. Challenging the said order, the present revision has been filed.

¶19

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

¶20

without any evidence, the application has been ordered, in fact, the marriage between the parties is also dissolved by way of mutual divorce, wherein, the wife has given evidence before the Family Court admitting that she has received all her

¶21

Page 2 / 5

¶22

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

¶23

CRP.No.978 of 2024

¶24

jewels, she has no claim against her husband. Having given such statements, it is highly improbable to contend that she left 3 ½ sovereigns of gold thali chain. Hence, seeks for allowing of this revision.

¶25

Despite service of notice to the respondent and name being printed in the cause-list, none appeared for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

¶26

As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while the

¶27

respondent was examined in the matrimonial proceedings in divorce application, she has deposed that she has received all her jewels from the husband and also deposed that she will not claim any maintenance from the respondent in future and she will not file any civil or criminal case as against the petitioner. This aspect has

¶28

been recorded in the common judgment rendered by the Family Court in the divorce proceedings in FCOP.Nos.211 & 239 of 2022. The common judgment was delivered by the Family Court, Chengalpattu on 22.08.2023. Further, the present application has been filed earlier to the divorce petition. Therefore, once the respondent has already admitted before the Family Court that she has received all

¶29

Page 3 / 5

¶30

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

¶31

CRP.No.978 of 2024

¶32

her jewels and filing a separate application for return of 3 ½ sovereign of gold thali chain is not maintainable. This aspect has not been considered by the Trial Court. Further, no evidence whatsoever has been filed to substantiate such stand. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed without any evidence and the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this revision stands allowed. No costs.

¶33

16.12.2024

¶34

Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order dhk

¶35

To, The Judge Family Court, Chengapet Chengalpet District

¶36

Page 4 / 5

¶37

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

¶38

CRP.No.978 of 2024

¶39

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶40

dhk

¶41

CRP.No.978 of 2024

¶42

16.12.2024

¶43

Page 5 / 5

¶44

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

K.Dharanidharan v. R.Vasanthakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Dharanidharan v. R.Vasanthakumari

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

M.Dakshinamurthy Vs Mr. Senthilkumar

Syam Manohar Vs R.Mala

Habeeb Hardware Vs M.D.Gajarajkumar

A.Thandava Natarajan Vs v.Akkammal (Died), 1.S.Rukmani

Marakkal (Deceased) Palanisamy Vs Subbammal (Deceased) 1. Mani

M.Swaminathan Vs K.Dhanam