Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1264 (MAD)

S. Anand Kumar v. A. Anandhi

2010-03-25

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. In as much as the issues arising for consideration in both the civil revision petitions are one and the same, a common order is being passed. 2. The civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.1075 of 2010, has been filed praying that Court may be pleased to set aside the order, dated 9.3.2010 made in I.A.No.1602 of 2010, in G.W.O.P.No.2404 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai. 3. The civil revision petition, in C.R.P.No.1076 of 2010, has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order, dated 9.3.2010, made in I.A.No.1603 of 2010, in G.W.O.P.No.2404 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai. 4. It has been stated that the petitioner had filed G.W.O.P.No.2404 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, to appoint the petitioner as the Guardian of his daughter, A.Abinaya, to take care of her welfare and interest. He had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.3646 of 2009, in G.W.O.P.No.2404 of 2008, to implead one R.Shankar, Gang No.85, working in the Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi, Chennai. The petitioner had further filed I.A.SR.Nos.1602 and 1603 of 2010. 5. I.A.SR.No.1602 of 2010, had been filed, under Order IX Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, praying for the issuance of summon to the general manager, Air Cell Mobile System, at Door No.301 (Old No.193) Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, to appear before the Principal Family Court Chennai, to give evidence regarding call details of mobile No.9710085283. I.A.SR.No.1603 of 2010 had been filed, under Order XI Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to issue subpoena to the General Manager, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi, Chennai, to appear before the Principal Family Court, Chennai, with the original attendance record of the employees and to give evidence thereon. 6. By a common order, dated 9.3.2010, the Principal Family Court, Chennai, had rejected the applications filed by the petitioner stating that the requests made by the petitioner are irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of the case. The said Court had also stated that the applications have been filed, belatedly, with the intention of prolonging the proceedings unnecessarily. 6. By a common order, dated 9.3.2010, the Principal Family Court, Chennai, had rejected the applications filed by the petitioner stating that the requests made by the petitioner are irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of the case. The said Court had also stated that the applications have been filed, belatedly, with the intention of prolonging the proceedings unnecessarily. The Principal Family Court, Chennai, had also pointed out that G.W.O.P.No.2404 of 2008, filed by the petitioner and G.W.O.P.No.2815 of 2008, filed by the respondent for appointment of guardian and custody of the minor child were being tried together, based on the directions issued by the High Court, on 7.8.2009, in C.R.P.(PD) No.2267 of 2009. It had also been pointed out that, as per the directions issued by the High Court, the petitions had to be disposed of on or before 30.9.2009. Accordingly, the Principal Family Court, Chennai, had rejected the applications filed by the petitioner, in limine. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 9.3.2010, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petitions, before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the Principal Family Court, Chennai, had failed to note that the interlocutory applications had been filed by the petitioner in order to prove that the respondent was leading an adulterous life. G.W.O.P.Nos.2404 and 2815 of 2008, filed for appointment of guardian for the minor child cannot be correctly decided, unless the petitioner is given an opportunity to prove his allegations. Therefore, the order of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, dated 9.3.2010, dismissing the interlocutory applications, in limine, at the initial stage, is erroneous and illegal. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the petitioner had filed the applications in question only to harass the respondent. He had made bald allegations against the respondent only with the mala fide intention of obtaining custody of the minor child, Abinaya, even though the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed as her guardian. The High Court in its order, dated 7.8.2009, made in C.R.P.(PD) No.2267 of 2009, had directed the Principal Family Court, Chennai, to dispose of G.W.O.P.Nos.2404 and 2815 of 2008, on or before 30.9.2009. Therefore, the civil revision petitions, filed by the petitioner, are devoid of merits. 9. The High Court in its order, dated 7.8.2009, made in C.R.P.(PD) No.2267 of 2009, had directed the Principal Family Court, Chennai, to dispose of G.W.O.P.Nos.2404 and 2815 of 2008, on or before 30.9.2009. Therefore, the civil revision petitions, filed by the petitioner, are devoid of merits. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the order of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, dated 9.3.2010, made in I.A.SR.NOs.1602 and 1603 of 2010. 10. The Principal Family Court, Chennai, had rightly held that the applications filed by the petitioner are belated in nature and that the reliefs sought for in the said applications are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case. It had also been observed that the applications had been filed by the petitioner only with the intention of prolonging the proceedings, unnecessarily. It had also been pointed out that this Court had passed an order, dated 7.8.2009, in C.R.P.(PD) No.2267 of 2009, directing the Principal Family Court, Chennai, to dispose of G.W.O.P.No.2404 of 2008 and G.W.O.P.No.2815 of 2008, as expeditiously as possible, not later than 30.9.2009. As such, the Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, they are dismissed. No costs.