M. VENKATESAN Vs. D. INDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Family Court, Madurai District, in M.C.No.29 of 2014, dtd. 21/4/2016. The revision petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent herein is the wife.

(2.) Brief substance of the petition, in M.C.No. 29 of 2014, is as follows: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 13/7/2005, at the Murugan Temple, Tirupparankundram. They lived peacefully for a period of three months. Subsequently, due to the instigation of the family members, the husband left the wife at her parents' house. Without the knowledge of the wife, the husband by giving a false address, obtained an exparte divorce order in H.M.O.P.No.156 of 2006. By getting the High Court order, the divorce petition was sent to the trial Court for fresh consideration. The petitioner filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No. 357 of 2007, for restitution of conjugal rights. On 22/1/2011, the divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.156 of 2006 was allowed by the trial Court and the restitution of conjugal rights petition in H.M.O.P.No. 357 of 2007, was dismissed by the trial Court. The wife filed Appeals in CMA(MD)Nos.418 and 419 of 2011 and the appeals are pending before the High Court. The petitioner filed a case under the DV Act. She lodged a police complaint against the husband and his family members. The husband and his sister also lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Due to the efforts of the elders, the husband and his family members, gave a false promise before the elders that both the husband and wife will live together. With the false promise, they obtained signature from the petitioner and her mother in various blank papers. On good faith, the petitioner withdrew the cases filed by her. After the withdrawal of the case, the husband refused to live with the petitioner. When the appeals are pending before the High Court, the husband got second marriage. But, the petitioner never had a second marriage. The petitioner sent a notice seeking maintenance from the husband. The husband sent a reply notice, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner has executed an agreement stating that she received a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 as permanent alimony. The husband by using the signature of the petitioner and her mother, in blank papers, has created some fake documents and prayed a sum of Rs.10,000.00 per month to be awarded as maintenance.

(3.) Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent, in M.C.No. 29 of 2014, is as follows: