Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 288 (MAD)

K. Shanthi v. N. Gunasekaran

2018-01-29

M.DURAISWAMY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the order passed in H.M.O.P. No. 110 of 007 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Poonamallee, the appellant, who is the wife of the respondent, has filed the above appeal. 2. The respondent filed the H.M.O.P. No. 110 of 2007 for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant/wife filed her counter and was contesting the petition. 3. When the Original Petition was posted for trial, since the appellant failed to appear before the trial Court, the evidence on the side of the appellant was closed and based on the evidence let in by the respondent/husband, the trial Court granted a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 4. On a perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it could be seen that the Original Petition was listed for trial on 08.04.2014, 17.04.2014 and 21.04.2014, however, the appellant failed to let in any evidence on those days. Hence, the evidence on the side of the appellant was closed on 21.04.2014 and the matter was adjourned to 22.04.2014 for arguments. Even the respondent was not cross examined by the appellant. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the decree for divorce was granted in favour of the respondent without giving an opportunity to the appellant to let in evidence on her side. 5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had filed applications to recall and reopen the evidence. However, the applications were returned by the trial Court for the reason that the applications were filed only on the date of pronouncement of the order. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be given to the appellant to let in evidence and the trial Court may also be directed to complete the proceedings within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 7. Mr. N.R. Anantha Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly submitted that since the appellant has not let in any evidence, a final opportunity may be given to her to let in evidence and the trial Court may be directed to complete the proceedings within a short time frame. 8. 7. Mr. N.R. Anantha Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly submitted that since the appellant has not let in any evidence, a final opportunity may be given to her to let in evidence and the trial Court may be directed to complete the proceedings within a short time frame. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, since the appellant has not let in any evidence and has also not cross examined the respondent before the trial Court, in order to give one more final opportunity to the appellant, I am inclined to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the fair and decreetal order passed in H.M.O.P. No. 110 of 2007 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the III Additional District Judge, Poonamallee for fresh consideration. The parties are directed to let in additional oral and documentary evidences in support of their respective cases. The III Additional District Judge, Poonamallee is directed to dispose of the matter within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties are directed to complete the trial without seeking for unnecessary adjournments. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has also given an undertaking that the appellant would complete her evidence within fifteen (15) days from the date of starting of the evidence on her side. 10. With these observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.