Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3999 (MAD)

Amudha v. Suresh Kumar

2010-09-03

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This civil revision petition has been filed against the order and decretal, dated 3.2.2009, made in I.A.No.2 of 2008, in H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Ponneri. 2. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.2 of 2008, in H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2007, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, for scientific investigation of the documents marked as Exhibits P.1 and R.1 and R.2, to verify the age of the impression, originality and genuineness of the documents and for an expert opinion thereon. 3. The H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2007, had been filed by the husband of the petitioner, who is the respondent in the present civil revision petition, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Ponneri, seeking divorce against the petitioner on the ground of cruelty. During the chief examination, the respondent had marked a fabricated marriage invitation, marked as Exhibit P.1, showing his educational qualification, which had not been found in the original marriage invitation printed at the time of the marriage. The original marriage invitations printed and distributed by the respondent, at the time of the marriage, had also been marked as Exhibits R.1 and R2. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.2 of 2008, in H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2007, seeking expert opinion, in respect of Exhibits P.1 and R.1 and R.2. However, the learned Additional District Judge, Ponneri, had rejected the application stating that, the request of the petitioner, to refer the concerned documents for an expert opinion is irrelevant to the issues arising for consideration, in the H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2007. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that, for the purpose of proving whether the consent for the marriage had been obtained from the petitioner, by misrepresentation, can be decided only based on expert opinion. While so, it is improper on the part of the learned Additional District Judge, Ponneri, to reject the application filed by the petitioner without considering the same, on merits. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had preferred I.A.No.2 of 2008, only to drag on the proceedings and there is no need for obtaining an expert opinion, as prayed for by the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge, Ponneri, had considered all the relevant aspects before rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge, Ponneri, had considered all the relevant aspects before rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had relied on the decision of this Court, in R.JAGADEESAN Vs. N.AYYASAMY ( 2010 (1) CTC 424 ) to substantiate his claim that the request of the petitioner, to refer the documents concerned for obtaining an expert opinion would be futile and it would also be irrelevant for the trial Court to decide the issues arising for its consideration. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ponneri, dated 3.2.2009, made in I.A.No.2 of 2008, in H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2007. 8. The learned Additional District Judge, Ponneri, had considered the relevant factors before rejecting I.A.No.2 of 2008, in H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2007, filed by the petitioner. He had found that, obtaining an expert opinion, in respect of the documents in question, as prayed for by the petitioner, would be irrelevant to decide the issues arising for his consideration, in H.M.O.P.No.105 of 2007. As such, the present civil revision petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.