Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3153 (MAD)

Veera RK Arunachalam v. Krishna Devi @ Kannathal

2022-09-06

R.N.MANJULA

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.3664 of 2018 in O.P.No.1691 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai dated 15.11.2021.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by I Additional Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.3664 of 2018 in O.P.No.1691 of 2013 dated 15.11.2021. 2. Heard Mr. R. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Arulmozhi, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows : The revision petitioner is the husband who filed an original petition in O.P.No.1691 of 2013 against the respondent wife for dissolution of marriage. The said petition was allowed ex-parte on 26.11.2015 and the decree of divorce was also passed; the respondent wife had filed I.A.No.3664 of 2018 to condone the delay of 890 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte order dated 26.11.2015. The said petition was allowed; aggrieved over that, the petitioner husband has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 4. Mr. R. Srinivas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petition to condone the delay has been filed by the respondent wife just to harass the petitioner; the delay of 890 days was very inordinate and the respondent wife did not state any acceptable reasons to condone the delay; in fact, the revision petitioner got married with an another girl on 28.12.2017; only after knowing the above fact, the respondent wife had filed the said petition just to spoil the peace of mind of the petitioner; the respondent wife deserted the matrimonial home as early as in the year 2012; between November 2013 and December 2014, the revision petitioner was temporarily staying in the matrimonial home for the sake of children; even during that time, the revision petitioner did not stay at home and he went on business tours. 4.1. 4.1. It is false to state that the respondent wife was not aware of the ex-parte order passed in the year 2015; the E-mail communication exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent would show that the respondent wife has got the knowledge about the ex-parte order, but she had chosen to file the present petition just to protract the proceedings and thereby spoil the personal peace of the petitioner; in fact in her own mails sent on 24.08.2016 and 26.04.2017 to the petitioner, which are marked as Ex.R15 and Ex.R19 will show that she is aware of the ex-parte order of divorce before 2018 itself; the learned Family Judge without considering the said fact, had chosen to allow the petition filed by the respondent wife. 5. Ms. A. Arulmozhi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during the pendency of the original petition, efforts were taken for conciliation; at one point of time, counselling was also given to the parties from July 2013 to October 2013; thereafter, the couple started to live together from November 2013; so the respondent wife thought that the original petition was not pursued thereafter; from November 2013 to December 2015, the petitioner was staying with the respondent and children in one home only; only from the year 2016, the revision petitioner stopped coming home and started to live at his parents' house; the respondent went sick in the year 2016 and had undergone a surgery during February 2017; during the month of May 2018, she was informed that the revision petitioner had obtained an order of exparte divorce; the respondent continues to reside in the Company quarters of the revision petitioner with her children; the revision petitioner concealed the pendency of the original petition in O.P.No.1691 of 2013 and the exparte order obtained on 26.11.2015; the revision petitioner was contacting the respondent through E-mails in which she continued to claim for settlement etc; the learned Family Judge had rightly given a liberty to the respondent to contest the case on merits by way of condoning the delay; in support of her submissions, she relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Garima Singh Vs. Sri Sanjai Singh and Ors reported in (1996) II DMC 422 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh Vs. Garima Singh reported in (1998) 8 SCC 375 . 6. Sri Sanjai Singh and Ors reported in (1996) II DMC 422 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh Vs. Garima Singh reported in (1998) 8 SCC 375 . 6. In the petition filed by the revision petitioner in O.P.No.1691 of 2013, an ex-parte order of divorce was granted on 26.11.2015. The respondent wife had chosen to file a petition in I.A.No.3664 of 2018, for condoning the huge delay of 890 days by stating that she came to know about the ex-parte order only in the year 2018 through some relatives. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had got the knowledge about the ex-parte divorce as early as in the year 2016 itself and its is evident from the Email communication exchanged between the parties held during the relevant period. The revision petitioner got remarried with an another girl on 28.12.2017. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent had chosen to file the petition and re-open the case just for the purpose of harassing him for having got married with an another lady. Since both the parties have filed the E-mail communications, it will be appropriate to rely on the communications held between them in order to find out whether the respondent / wife had got the knowledge about the ex-parte order even prior to the year 2018. 7. Considering the change of circumstances of the parties and the personal status, it is suggested during the pendency of the O.P proceedings that the parties could amicably settle the issue between themselves. Despite it was agreed and efforts were taken in this regard, it is informed by the learned counsels that the parties did not settle the issue practically. In this context, the matter needs to be decided on merits. Two vital exhibits R15 and R19 are relied by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and from those documents it could be known that the respondent wife had got the knowledge about the exparte order of divorce even prior to the year 2018. The said documents Ex.R15 and Ex.R19 are some of the E-mail Communications between the couple among the several mails exchanged between themselves. The said documents Ex.R15 and Ex.R19 are some of the E-mail Communications between the couple among the several mails exchanged between themselves. The E-mail communications dated 24.08.2016 & 26.04.2017, which are marked as Ex.R15 and Ex.R19, are extracted hereunder : E-mail dated 24.08.2016 (Ex.R15): “Mental Veera you said your paying so much of bills for the family especially maintenance and EB. Maintenance bill is three months due so far, I gave your number to manager and I have no relationship as I am a divorcee. If your not paying I will be talking this to Sukumar sir, and all person whomsoever related to us. I informed all the teachers in school that you filed for divorce and I am not living together, so please do not contact the kids father and he has no care for them, he simply gives money as he was threatened by counsellors and forced to pay bills, thank you for talking to my son. Krishna” E-mail dated 26.04.2017 (Ex.R19): “I told number of times not to talk to my son. My parents have decided to come to an end by this year when vish finish of his tenth and the Kandanoor Ayyappan Annan will be there when I vacate my things. As long as I stay here you give the house, cash. I will settle when I vacat rmt. We already have taken steps. I told everyone even your driver that we are divorced. You can ask even. I gave the books and told clearly we are staying here only for a shorter period. My parents do not want to continue this more as they are having a mental torture because of you. I have not seen a family like you people having sex with there own brother.” 8. The above mails would only show that the respondent wife had got the knowledge about the order of divorce even during the year 2016 itself. She has consciously written in the E-mail dated 18.07.2016 that she would re-open the case. In Ex.R15 mail dated 24.08.2016 she described herself as a divorcee. 9. The learned Family Judge has made an observation that the real meaning of the above mails exchanged between the couple can be known only when they are examined. The parties have knowingly avoided oral evidence in the impugned petition and they had chosen to mark documents only on their respective sides. 9. The learned Family Judge has made an observation that the real meaning of the above mails exchanged between the couple can be known only when they are examined. The parties have knowingly avoided oral evidence in the impugned petition and they had chosen to mark documents only on their respective sides. Under such circumstances, there is no necessity to examine them once again in order to understand the contents of the E-mail exchanged between themselves. In fact Ex.R19 E-mail dated 26.04.2017, the respondent wife had used clear words to mean that she had the knowledge about the ex-parte order and she had stated the said fact to the driver of the revision petitioner as well. For the sake of clarity, the contents of the above E-mail dated 26.04.2017 (Ex.R19), are once again extracted hereunder : “I told number of times not to talk to my son. My parents have decided to come to an end by this year when vish finish of his tenth and the Kandanoor Ayyappan Annan will be there when I vacate my things. As long as I stay here you give the house, cash. I will settle when I vacat rmt. We already have taken steps. I told everyone even your driver that we are divorced. You can ask even. I gave the books and told clearly we are staying here only for a shorter period. My parents do not want to continue this more as they are having a mental torture because of you. I have not seen a family like you people having sex with there own brother.” 10. The above mails would only show that the respondent wife had got the knowledge about the exparte order before 2018 and it is not true that she came to know about the exparte order only in the year 2018 through some of her relatives. The learned Family Judge ought to have given correct interpretation to these E-mails and appreciated the merits in the contention of the parties. Unless the respondent gives satisfactory reason for condoning a huge delay of 890 days, the Court cannot be too liberal in condoning the same and that too when the evidence produced by the parties make it clear that the respondent filed the petition to condone the delay by having got the knowledge about it even in the year 2016 itself. Unless the respondent gives satisfactory reason for condoning a huge delay of 890 days, the Court cannot be too liberal in condoning the same and that too when the evidence produced by the parties make it clear that the respondent filed the petition to condone the delay by having got the knowledge about it even in the year 2016 itself. In such circumstances, it is not correct to condone the delay and unsettle the life equilibrium of the parties. 11. No doubt, an innocent wife against whom the husband had fraudulently obtained divorce, should not be allowed to go remedy-less. At the same time, the benefit of law should not be used as a weapon to continuously haunt the parties to the marriage, even after the marriage had came to an end. In fact, the petitioner seem to have taken sincere efforts to practically settle all other issues between the couple, when opportunity was given. The communication between the counsels during the pendency of proceedings would show the efforts taken towards settlement. However, it did not fructify. It seems that there are some other proceedings like maintenance case is pending and hence the avenues for settlement is still open to them. 12. Since the respondent did not prove that she had the knowledge about the exparte order only in the year 2018, it is not correct for the learned Family Judge to hold that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Hence I feel that the order of the learned Family Judge calls for interference. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by I Additional Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.3664 of 2018 in O.P.No.1691 of 2013 dated 15.11.2021, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.