Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 561 (MAD)

R. Srividhya v. N. Dinesh Kumar

2016-02-12

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2016
ORDER : Heard both sides. The wife is the petitioner in the revision and the husband is the respondent herein. 2. The respondent herein filed O.P.No.760 of 2013 for a decree annulling his marriage with the petitioner that took place on 09.12.2010 and in the alternative for divorce on the ground of unsoundness of mind of the petitioner herein (wife). 3. As per the procedure, admittedly conciliation was made and after three rounds of conciliation the parties were not brought closure to settlement. Meanwhile, the respondent herein/husband filed a petition I.A.No.327 of 2014, for referring the petitioner herein/wife for medical examination to find out her mental condition. When the said petition was pending, the respondent herein / husband approached this Court with CRP (PD) No.4186 of 2014, for the speedy disposal of the said petition. This Court, by order dated 07.11.2014, directed the trial Judge viz., the learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai to dispose of the said IA on merits within 15 days. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge passed an order in the said IA directing the petitioner herein to subject her to medical examination at the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai. It is as against the said order of the trial Court dated 18.03.2015, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Mr.C.Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that though the petitioner may not be in a position to argue on merits, he would confine his arguments with regard to the manner in which the learned trial Judge chose to pass the impugned order. According to his submissions, the trial Court, being a Family Court and hence enjoined with the duty to arrange for counselling and also for the personal examination of the parties, ought to have examined the petitioner herein / wife to note the coherency with which she is answering the questions, behaviour during such personal contact and other relevant factors before directing her to appear for medical examination regarding her mental condition. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to contend that the above said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to contend that the above said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on three occasions, counselling was arranged and even after three rounds of counselling, settlement was elusive, which resulted in the submission of a report to the effect that reunion was not possible. 6. But the counselling made by the Counsellors cannot be equated with the personal interview and the personal observation to be made by the Judge. There is nothing on record to show that the learned Judge did in fact personally interviewed the petitioner/wife and noted her behaviour before referring her for medical examination. Though, such observations of the Judge, who is not a medical expert, will not lead to a binding decision, the same will help the Judge to understand properly and appraise the report to be submitted by the medical officer, if the petitioner is referred to a medical officer for examination. 7. In view of the above, this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case in which the order of the trial Court could be interfered with and set aside and IA No.327 of 2014 in O.P.No.760 of 2013, shall be remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to the trial Court to have personal interview and observation of the petitioner before taking a decision on the petition either to direct a medical examination or not. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the trial Court dated 18.03.2015 made in I.A.No.327 of 2014 is set aside. I.A.No.327 of 2014, is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to rehear the application after having a personal interview with the petitioner herein/wife and noting the observations at such personal interview. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.