Allowed

M.S.Muthu Kamala Sree v. P.Ganesh Aravindh

Madras HC19 Dec 2024CRP(MD)/3174/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition. It held that the Family Court, Theni erred in returning the petitioner's restitution of conjugal rights petition, as her residence made Theni the correct forum under Section 19(iii-a). The directive was to number and decide the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Family Court, Theni to number the original petition and dispose of it on merits; registry to return original papers.

M.S.Muthu Kamala Sree Vs P.Ganesh Aravindh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.3174 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.3174 of 2024

¶7

M.S.Muthu Kamala Sree ... Petitioner / Petitioner

¶8

¶9

P.Ganesh Aravindh ... Respondent / Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the return order dated 04.11.2024 in unnumbered O.P.No.--of 2024 in Filing No.O.P.556 of 2024 by directing the Family Court, Theni, to take on file and number the unnumbered O.P.No.-- of 2024 by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajamohan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred for a direction to direct the Family Court, Theni to number the OP filed by the revision

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

C.R.P(MD)No.3174 of 2024

¶17

petitioner which was returned on 04.11.2024, stating that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said original petition.

¶18

According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the

¶19

petitioner is the wife of the respondent herein, and that she filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Theni, for restitution of conjungal rights. However, the said Court misconstrued Section 23A of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955 and erroneously returned the petition, by stating that only the Family Court, Tirunelveli, has jurisdiction to entertain the said original petition.

¶20

On perusal of records, it is seen that the Family Court, Theni has returned the petition filed by the revision petitioner / wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal right stating that only the Family Court, Tirunelveli, has jurisdiction to entertain the said petition. The said return order of the Family Court, Theni is erroneous. The said Court failed to consider that as per Section 19(iii-a) of Hindu Marriages Act,1955, if the wife is the petitioner, the petition must be presented in the Court where she is residing on the date of presentation.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P(MD)No.3174 of 2024

¶24

Therefore, the Family Court, Theni, is directed to number the

¶25

O.P filed by the revision petitioner and dispose the same on its own merits in accordance with law. Registry is directed to return the original papers to the petitioner by substituting the same with a certified photocopy.

¶26

With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶27

No costs.

¶28

19.12.2024

¶29

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No pnn

¶30

¶31

1.The Judge, Family Court, Theni.

¶32

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

C.R.P(MD)No.3174 of 2024

¶36

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

¶37

pnn

¶38

ORDER IN C.R.P(MD)No.3174 of 2024

¶39

19.12.2024

¶40

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

¶41

4/4

M.S.Muthu Kamala Sree v. P.Ganesh Aravindh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Muthu Kamala Sree v. P.Ganesh Aravindh

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

R.Jayakumar, Vs S.Sivashanmugam

Karuthamani @ Karuppayee Vs Akkammal

Muthuvel Vs Sumathi

Marimuthu, Vs S. Mahalingam

M. Jeral Jeyaseelan Vs St.Antonys Church Committee

Santhanamariappan Vs Pushpaselvi