Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 646 (MAD)

S. Sundari W/o. Venkatachalapathy v. Venkatachalapathy S/o. Gopalakrishnan

2020-03-13

R.PONGIAPPAN, R.SUBBIAH

body2020
JUDGMENT : [Judgment of this Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] The present appeals have been filed against the order dated 28.06.2016 made in I.A.Nos.999 and 1000 of 2014 in M.O.P.No.169 of 2009 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry. 2. Respondent and appellant are husband and wife. The marriage between them was solemnized on 12.12.2005. Disputes arose between them. Respondent/husband filed M.O.P.No.169 of 2009 seeking divorce. PWs.1 and 2 were examined on the side of respondent. Despite the case was adjourned on several hearings for cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, appellant has failed to cross-examine them and hence, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was closed. Appellant filed I.A.No.999 of 2014 seeking re- call of PWs.1 and 2 and I.A.No.1000 of 2014 seeking to re-open the case for cross-examination of the witnesses. Court below, under orders dated 28.06.2016, allowed such applications by imposing costs of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively payable to respondent on or before 04.07.2016. It was also observed that in the event of failure to pay the costs to respondent, the applications will be dismissed. Since appellant has failed to effect payment, the applications were dismissed. Challenging such order, the present appeals have been filed. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that due to unavoidable circumstance, the appellant could not effect payment and the nonpayment of costs is neither wilful nor wanton. Submitting as above, learned counsel prays this Court to direct the trial Court to re-open the case and permit the appellant to cross-examine PWs.1 and 2. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submits that appellant is no longer interested in proceeding with the case and the present appeals have been filed only to drag on the proceedings. Submitting as above, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeals. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that since it is a case of matrimonial dispute, one more opportunity could be given to appellant to put forth her case on merits. Hence, in the interests of justice, this Court considers it appropriate to allow these appeals. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed and the order dated 28.06.2016 made in I.A.Nos.999 and 1000 of 2014 in M.O.P.No.169 of 2009 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry, is set aside. Hence, in the interests of justice, this Court considers it appropriate to allow these appeals. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed and the order dated 28.06.2016 made in I.A.Nos.999 and 1000 of 2014 in M.O.P.No.169 of 2009 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry, is set aside. Court below is directed to re-open the case and permit the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses. Appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to respondent within one week from the date of receipt of this order. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.