Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4163 (MAD)

Ramesh v. Maragatham

2013-12-11

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The arguments advanced by Mr.S.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials available in the form of typed set of papers are also perused. 2. The plaintiff in the Original Suit No.179/2008 is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition and the defendant therein is the respondent herein. The revision petitioner filed the said suit on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam praying for a declaration that no marriage took place between him and the respondent on 25.05.2008 and also for cost. 3. The learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, after trial, dismissed the suit holding that the suit was not maintainable as a civil suit and the remedy open to the revision petitioner was to file a necessary petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the competent court. The said decree dismissing the suit was challenged before the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in A.S.No.35 of 2011. The learned Subordinate Judge, allowed the appeal, granted the declaration, but at the same time, made an observation in the operative part of the decree itself that the declaration granted should not be taken to mean that the marital status of the revision petitioner was declared and that the remedies available under the relevant Marriage Law was available to both the parties. 4. After having invited such a judgment and decree in the appellate court, the revision petitioner has chosen to prefer the present revision petition not against the judgment of the appellate court or any finding of the appellate court, but against a finding of the trial court, which came to be reversed by the appellate court. The revision petition itself is misconceived and the same is not maintainable. The remedy open to the revision petitioner is to challenge that part of the decree of the appellate court, which according to him, is against him, by preferring an appeal or revision, whichever course is available to him. For the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.