There Cannot Be A Trial Before Registry: Madras HC Directs Family Court To Number Wife’s Petition
The Madras High Court directed the Family Court to number the wife's petition filed under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 while noting that to demand proof at the time of numbering would put the Petitioner in a difficult position.
The Court was hearing a Civil Revision Petition arising after the Principal Family Court refused to number the Petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the wife.
The bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed, “To demand proof at the time of numbering, I feel that it would put the petitioner in a difficult position. This is because there cannot be a trial before the Registry and another trial after the respondent files his counter and issues are framed by the Court.”
Advocate Shaikh Mehrunnisa Kasim appeared for the Petitioner.
Brief Facts-
The Petitioner and Respondent married in 2011 and have two children. The husband filed for divorce claiming the marriage followed Christian rites. The Petitioner disputed that and asserted that the marriage occurred in a simple ceremony in 2010 but was solemnised at the temple in 2011. She filed for restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming that both are Hindus, but the Registry questioned its maintainability as she is listed as a Christian.
The Court said that the fact that the marriage had taken place in 2011 is clear from the marriage certificate that has been issued by the Marriage Officer-cum-Sub Registrar.
The Court mentioned the decision in Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited rep. through its Project Director, (2021) where it had directed a Court to go as per the averments made in the Petition and not act as if it is a party to the litigation.
While noting that nowhere in the Petition, the Civil Revision Petitioner pleaded that she is a Christian on the contrary, her specific plea is that the proceeding in I.D.O.P. itself is based on a fabricated document the Court said, “When such plea exists, the repeated return of the petition by the Court, calling upon the parties to prove that they are Hindus, is erroneous. A Court should act upon the averments made in the petition for the purpose of seizing jurisdiction and should not play the role of the respondent.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition.
