1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

ARIYALUR.

PRESENT: Tmt.M.D.SUMATHI, B.Sc., B.L.,

Principal District Judge,
Ariyalur.

Wednesday, the 31st day of July 2019

(2050 Thiruvalluvar Aandu , Vikari, Aadi Thingal 15 th day)

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1/2018

Sozhiya ...Appellant/Petitioner
/Versus/
Jayavel ….Respondent/ Respondent

On Appeal preferred by the Appellant/ Petitioner as against the Fair and Decreetal
Order passed in HMOP No.16/2018 dated 13.08.2018 passed by the Subordinate Judge,
Jayankondam.

BETWEEN
Sozhiya ... Petitioner
/Versus/
Jayavel …. Respondent

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came up before me on 19.07.2019 for final hearing
in the presence of Thiru.K.R.Sivam, Advocate for the Appellant and of Thiru.
V.R.T.Ramalingam, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the both side
arguments and upon perusing the documents put forth before the trial court, having stood
over till this day for consideration and this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal has preferred by the Appellant/Petitioner challenging the Fair and
Decreetal Order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jayankondam in HMOP.No.16/2018,
dated 13.08.2018.

2. The Averments of Petition in Brief.

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on
22.01.2017 at Arulmigu Sri Erattaipillaiyar Kovil at Thiruvannamalai and the
 2

marriage was registered on 03.02.2017 at Thiruvannamalai in the Sub-Registrar-II

Office. The petitioner and respondent are a Hindu community. The respondent was
met out the petitioner in the year 2017 at Thamampatti village in the respondent’s
father house. The petitioner was brain washed and the marriage was performed and
forcefully registered. The petitioner’s mother is a teacher and was working in
Sentharapatti Government Boys Higher Secondary School. The petitioner was missing
that the petitioner’s mother given complaint before the Thamampatti Police Station. Since
the petitioner and the respondents are major no action was taken. The petitioner has filed
the writ petition before the Honourable High Court, of Madras and as per the order of the
Honourable High Court, the petitioner is now living with her elder sister at Jayankondam.
The respondent has compelled the petitioner and without consent of the petitioner the
marriage was registered. There is willing to the petitioner to marry this respondent. Hence
the petitioner had filed the petition for divorce against the respondent that t he marriage
between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 22.01.2017 at Arulmigu Sri
Erattaipillaiyar Kovil at Thiruvannamalai and registered on 03.02.2017 at
Thiruvannamalai in the Sub-Registrar-II Office is null and void.

3. On notice served to respondent side. But the respondent not appeared before the trial
court. Hence the respondent was called absent set exparte. The petitioner Sozhiya was
examined as PW1 and the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were marked. After hearing petitioner side
and on perusal of the petition averments the learned Subordinate Judge, Jayankondam
has dismissed the petition for divorce on 13.8.2018. Aggrieved by the fair and decreetal
Order the appellant/petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

5. The grounds of appeal.

The decree and judgment passed by the trial court is against, law weight of
evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial court had failed to consider the oral as well
as the documentary evidences adduced on the side of the appellant. The trial court had
taken the role of the respondent and dismissed the petition, when the respondent husband
remained exparte. The petitioner had filed the petition for divorce against the respondent
that on the ground that the appellant was brain washed and the marriage was performed
and forcefully registered. Since the date of marriage, the appellant was tortured by the
respondent demanding dowry. Since the marriage is a love marriage the appellant could
not meet out the lawful demand of dowry. Since the respondents’ torture continued and
 3

unbearable one, when the appellant tried to contact her parties, which was also not
allowed by the respondent. The respondent had taken advantage of his position, and
situation as a matter of fact, had solitarily confined her, not even had mobile talk to her
parents. The appellants’ parents had failed in their attempt in securing the appellant,
without any alternative, had preferred a Hebeas Corpus petition before the Honorable High
Court Chennai, even the filing of the petition was not known to the appellant and the
respondent had secretly secured in a different place, by dogging the police, this fact was
known to the appellant and the respondent had secretly secured in a different place, by
dogging the police, this fact was known to the appellant when she was produced before
the judges in Honorable High Court, Chennai. When the appellant was produced before
the Honorable High Court, the respondent asked the appellant to say that she was not
compelled to marry, the marriage was performed with appellant consent, and she is willing
to go with respondent and also warned that if the appellant failed to adopt the advice of the
respondent, he would commit suicide with a note that the appellant was responsible for the
suicide of the respondent that made the appellant to represent before the honorable high
court, that she would join with respondent in five days.

Furthermore the appellant submitted that the attitude of the respondent was totally
changed, after the order of High Court, the respondent asked the appellant to go her
parents house, unless the appellant would fetch Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry, the respondent
would not take her back to matrimonial home. The parents of the appellant had not co-
operated and scolding the appellant, that the appellant had brought down the reputation of
the family down. Hence the appellant is now with her elder sister at Jayankondam. Since
the respondent had been torturing her persistently demanding the dowry, and the appellant
felt in-secured in the hands of the respondent since her marriage has irretrievably broken
down, had filed the petition for divorce, before the trial court, on the ground that the
marriage was performed forcibly, to annul the marriage by granting a decree of divorce.
The trial court while dismiss the petition, had observed that the appellant had represented
before the High court, that the marriage was voluntary, and she was willing to go with
respondent within five days, but contra to the above findings of the honorable High court,
Chennai, the petition is filed by the appellant, hence caused a doubt on the pleadings of
the appellant, and taken the role of the respondent dismissed the petition. The trial court
has forgotten that very presence of the appellant was secured before the High court only
after filing the Hebeas corpus petition, when such was the prevailing situation does it
possible and safe to be with the respondent who had already antagonized approach with
 4

this appellant, considering the circumstances, the trial court ought to have grated divorce
the dismissal resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore the appellant prays that this
Honourable court may be pleased to set aside the decree and judgment passed in
HMOP.No.16/2018 on the file of sub-court, Jayankondam, dated 13.08.2018 by allowing
this appeal and to allow the petition by dissolving the marriage between the appellant and
respondent by a decree of divorce.

The respondent counsel entered appearance and after obtaining the trial court
records when the appeal is posted for argument on request of the petitioner counsel this
matter is sent to mediation for settlement. This court is also inclined to send to mediation
and the matter is reported as settled along with terms of settlement. Petition filed under
order 23 Rule 1 of CPC.

6. Compromise Petition filed by both parties Under Order-23 Rule-1 and Sec 151 of
Cpc.
The petitioner has filed this petition in the trial court, that the marriage
between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized is to be set aside. But the
respondent not appeared before the trial court. Hence the petition was dismissed
by the trial court. On appeal preferred by the Petitioner as against the order and on the
basis of this compromise petition has filed. The marriage between the petitioner and
respondent was solemnized on 22.01.2017 is set aside and they agree that they
can no longer live together. The petitioner has obtained all education certificates
from the respondent in the mediation centre. The respondent has obtained worn
during wedding Thali and silver metti from the petitioner in the mediation centre. The
petitioner agrees that there is no need to come from the respondent. On the basis of
compromise petition the agreed this appeal and to allow the petition and t he marriage
between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 22.01.2017 is set aside.

7. Now the point for consideration is that whether this appeal suit may be allowed
and whether the Fair and decreetal order in HMOP.No.16/2018 on the file of Subordinate
Judge, Jayankondam requires to be set aside or not?

8. Answer for point:-

The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on

22.01.2017 at Arulmigu Sri Erattaipillaiyar Kovil at Thiruvannamalai and the
marriage was registered on 03.02.2017 at Thiruvannamalai in the Sub-Registrar-II
 5

Office. The appellant had filed the petition for divorce against the respondent that on the
ground that the marriage was performed and forcefully registered hence the marriage is
null and void.. After hearing petitioner side and on perusal of the petition averments the
learned Subordinate Judge, Jayankondam has dismissed the petition for divorce on
13.8.2018. Aggrieved by the fair and decreetal Order the appellant/petitioner has preferred
the present appeal. At request the appeal is referred to mediation. Both parties have filed
the settlement memo on 19.07.2019 before the mediation centre. In the settlement
memo it is stated that both the parties are agreed for divorce as there is no chance
of living together. The petitioner has obtained all education certificates from the
respondent in the mediation centre and the respondent has obtained worn during
wedding Thali and silver metti from the petitioner in the mediation centre. In view of the
compromise entered in to between both parties and the memo of settlement this appeal is
allowed. The Order in HMOP.No.16/2018, dated 13.08.2018 on the file of Sub Court,
Jayankondam is set aside. The compromise petition shall form part of this decree.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order in HMOP.No.16/2018, dated

13.08.2018 on the file of Sub Court, Jayankondam is set aside. T he marriage between
the appellant and respondent solemnized on 22.01.2017 is herewith dissolved in
terms of settlement entered into between the parties. The compromise petition shall form
part of this decree. Both the parties are directed to shall bear their own costs. The court
fee shall be refunded to the petitioner as per law.

Dictated by me to the Stenographer and directed and typed by her and corrected
and pronounced by me in open Court this the 31 st day of July 2019.

(Sd./-) M.D.Sumathi,
Principal District Judge,
Ariyalur.

Appellant and Respondent side Exhibits, witnesses: --Nil—

(Sd./-) M.D.Sumathi,
Principal District Judge,
Ariyalur.