This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the unnumbered H.M.O.P.No.... of 2016, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil.
2. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The petitioner filed H.M.O.P. seeking divorce from the respondent before the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil. According to the petitioner, she got married on 06.08.2008 at Kurunichi Aandavar Thirukovil, Kodaikanal. Two children were born in the wedlock. Subsequently, misunderstanding arose between the parties and therefore, both the petitioner and the respondent are living separately. Hence, the petitioner has filed H.M.O.P. seeking divorce from the respondent.
3. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, on 04.07.2016, returned the said H.M.O.P., directing the petitioner to file marriage invitation and marriage photograph to prove the marriage between the parties, within one month.
4. The petitioner has re-presented the same stating that because of the love marriage between her and the respondent, they have not printed the marriage invitation and the marriage photograph is with the respondent and she has produced copies of her children's birth certificates. Again, the said H.M.O.P. was returned.
5. Against the said second return, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction given by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, directing the petitioner to produce the document showing the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is against the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge ought to have numbered the petition filed by the petitioner after verifying the notices sent to the respondent and the reply notice has been filed along with H.M.O.P. He further submitted that when no document is available, the Trial Court ought to have numbered the divorce petition and decided the case on merits.
7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed by this Court, dated 27.04.2016, in C.R.P.(MD)No.940 of 2016, wherein at paragraphs 2 to 4, it has been held as follows:
?2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Proof of plaint allegations cannot be required at the stage of entertaining the suit and return of such ground is un-warranted.
4. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the Principal Sub Court, Nagercoil is directed to number the petition filed by the petitioner under the Hindu Marriage Act in unnumbered H.M.O.P.No. of 2014 in S.R. No.1211 of 2014. No costs.?
8. Though notice was served on the respondent and his name is also printed in the cause list, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.
9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
10. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner is seeking divorce from the respondent. In the circumstances, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, has directed the petitioner to produce the proof of marriage. According to the petitioner, the respondent has accepted the marriage in the reply notice and the respondent has not denied the marriage.
11. In view of the order of this Court, dated 27.04.2016, passed in C.R.P.(MD)No.940 of 2016, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, is directed to number the H.M.O.P. filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act and decide the case on merits and in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to both the parties. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil..