Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1711 (MAD)

G. Saravanachandran v. R. Jones Anitha Rani

2021-06-09

T.KRISHNAVALLI

body2021
JUDGMENT : T. Krishnavalli, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the decreetal and executable order, dated 05.12.2017 passed in IDOP No. 170 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. The respondent herein is a Professor working as Head of Department, M.C.A. Department, Meenakshi College of Engineering at Chennai. The respondent had inducted as a tenant in the year 2001 in the residential building, which was purchased by the petitioner's father at Kodambakkam, Chennai. The petitioner studied B.E. (Mechanical) Decree Course in the Academic year 2002-2006 in India and M.S. (Mechatronics) Course in Germany from 2006 to 2009. When the petitioner came to India for vacation during the 3rd week of December 2008, the respondent accompanied the family members of the petitioner to Chennai Airport. Having the introduction, on 22.12.2008 the respondent and her family members took the petitioner to J.C.M. Church Venkateswarapuram, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District and forced the petitioner to put signature in the Church records as if marriage was solemnized between the respondent and the petitioner. In the 1st week of January 2009, the petitioner went back to Germany and got a job thereon. Thereafter, the petitioner returned to India in the 1st week of June 2009 and settled in his native place at Sivakasi and looking after the business of Match Industries, left by his father, who died in the year 2006. The respondent and her family members got money on several occasions from the petitioner by threat and also illegally sequestered the petitioner's Passport and Bank ATM. It is alleged that the petitioner informed the threat and illegal extraction of money by the respondent and her family members to his close family friend Mr. Dhanabalan. On 18.07.2014, the petitioner and his family friend Dhanabalan went to J.C.M. Church and perused the Register of Marriage and found that the respondent recorded her marital status as 'Widow.' The respondent had already got married with one Dr. Prince David and he is a Medical Practitioner in Malaysia. The petitioner lodged a complaint on 29.07.2014 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District for the illegal act committed by the respondent and her family members. The said complaint was directed to Uthumalai Police Officer and he enquired and advised the petitioner and the respondent to resolve the matter in the Court of Law. The petitioner lodged a complaint on 29.07.2014 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District for the illegal act committed by the respondent and her family members. The said complaint was directed to Uthumalai Police Officer and he enquired and advised the petitioner and the respondent to resolve the matter in the Court of Law. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition in IDOP No. 170 of 2014 under section 18 r/w 19(4) of the Indian Divorce Act, declaring the marriage, dated 22.12.2008 between him and the respondent registered as Book No. 1 Sl. No. 47/2008 on the file of the Register of Marriage of J.C.M. Church, Venkateswarapuram, Alangulam, Taluk, Tirunelveli District as null and void. The learned trial Court, by order, dated 05.12.2017, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this court as appellant. 3. The main contention raised on the side of the appellant/petitioner is that the earlier marriage of the respondent/respondent with her previous husband was in subsistence and hence, the marriage between the appellant/petitioner and the respondent/respondent is null and void and prays that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/respondent submitted that after dissolution of the first marriage, the respondent/respondent married the appellant/petitioner and hence, the marriage between the appellant/petitioner and the respondent/respondent is valid and prays that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be dismissed. 5. The appellant/petitioner stated that the earlier marriage of the respondent/respondent with her first husband was in subsistence and due to threat by the family members of the respondent/respondent, the appellant/petitioner married the respondent/respondent and hence, the marriage between the appellant/petitioner and the respondent/respondent is null and void. But on the side of the respondent/respondent, it is stated that the first marriage of her was dissolved by the Malaysian Court and only after dissolution of her first marriage, she married the appellant/petitioner and hence, the marriage between her and the appellant/petitioner is valid. Hence, it is necessary to decide as to whether the first marriage of the respondent/respondent was dissolved as per law and after the dissolution of the first marriage, the respondent/respondent married the appellant/petitioner. 6. In this case, the appellant/petitioner was examined as PW1. The respondent/respondent was examined as RW1. RW1 during her evidence stated that her first marriage was with one Dr. 6. In this case, the appellant/petitioner was examined as PW1. The respondent/respondent was examined as RW1. RW1 during her evidence stated that her first marriage was with one Dr. Prince David and as un-compromisable difference of opinion arose between them, her first husband, who is a citizen of Malaysia filed divorce petition in the Court of Malaysia and after sometime, the appellant/petitioner used to came to her house and the appellant/petitioner stated that he was willing to marry her and hence, she married the appellant/petitioner and the above marriage was not accepted by the family members of the appellant/petitioner and the brother of the appellant/petitioner came and used filthy language before the staff and student of the college, where she was working and the appellant/petitioner requested her to give divorce, but she refused and with an intention to marry another girl, the appellant/petitioner filed this petition falsely and hence, the marriage between the appellant/petitioner and the respondent/respondent is valid. 7. PW1 stated that the first marriage of RW1 with one Dr. Prince was dissolved by the Court of Malaysia. But the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the first marriage of the respondent with Dr. Prince was held in India, but no petition for divorce was filed in India. But on the other hand, the divorce petition was filed by her first husband of in Malaysia. Further the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the judgment passed by the Malaysian Court is an ex-parte order and it was not passed on merits and hence, the judgment passed by the Malaysian Court will not bind the respondent/respondent and hence, without dissolving the first marriage of RW1 with her first husband in India, the conduct of second marriage between the appellant/petitioner and the respondent/respondent is not valid. For that, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted a ruling reported in: 1991(3) SCC 451 (Y. Narasimha Rao Vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi). 8. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, which would run thus:- "13. For that, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted a ruling reported in: 1991(3) SCC 451 (Y. Narasimha Rao Vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi). 8. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, which would run thus:- "13. When foreign judgment not conclusive-A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except- (a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of Competent jurisdiction; (b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case; (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of (Indian) in cases in which such law is applicable; (d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; (e) where it has been obtained by fraud; (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in (India)." 9. In this case, RW1 stated that the first marriage, which was held in India was dissolved in Malaysia as per Ex. P10 and hence, the dissolution of marriage by the Court of Malaysia is valid. 10. It is pertinent to note that the first marriage between the respondent/respondent and her first husband was solemnized in India and as per Ex. P10, it was re-registered before the Malaysian Government. But no petition for divorce filed in Indian. Further, RW1 stated that she filed HMOP for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband in India and obtained order of conjugal rights and it is still in force. Hence, from the above fact, it reveals that the first marriage between the respondent/respondent and her first husband was still in existence in India. Further, the respondent/respondent obtained an order of conjugal rights against her first husband. It is to be noted here that the divorce decree passed by the Court of Malaysia is an ex-parte decree and it was not passed on merits. Further, the marriage between the respondent/respondent and her first husband was not solemnized in Malaysia and it was solemnized in India. Hence, the ex-parte decree of divorce passed by the Malaysian Court will not bind the respondent/respondent. Further, the marriage between the respondent/respondent and her first husband was not solemnized in Malaysia and it was solemnized in India. Hence, the ex-parte decree of divorce passed by the Malaysian Court will not bind the respondent/respondent. Further, the respondent/respondent herself admitted that against the ex-parte decree of divorce passed by the Malaysian Court, she obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in Indian Court. Hence, it reveals that the first marriage between the respondent/respondent and her first husband is still in subsistence, since she obtained restitution of conjugal rights against her first husband. Further, the appellant/petitioner stated that only by the threat of the family members of the respondent/respondent, he married the respondent/respondent. For that, he gave a complaint to the police. But without considering that the respondent/respondent failed to prove that the first marriage between her and her first husband was dissolved in India, the trial court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the respondent/respondent after dissolution of the first marriage, she married the appellant/petitioner. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial court is required interference of this court. 11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned order, dated 05.12.2017 passed in IDOP No. 170 of 2014 by the I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli is set aside. It is declared that the marriage between the appellant/petitioner and the respondent/respondent solemnized on 22.12.2008 as Book No. 1, Sl. No. 47 of 2008 on the file of the Register of Marriage of J.C.M., Church, Venkateswarapuram, Alangluma, Taluk, Tirunelveli, as null and void. No costs.