VEMBADIAN MANI Vs. SIVAGAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suo motu civil revision petition is against an order dated 4-10-1994 in H. M. O. P. No. 65 of 1994 in M.C. No. 71 of 1994 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. This is a suo motu revision in exercise of the powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an extraordinary interim order passed by the Family Court in conciliation proceeding in H. M. O. P. 65 of 1974 under Hindu Marriage Act and M. C. No. 71 of 1994 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the purpose of this order are that Vembadian Mani has filed H.M.O.P. No. 65 of 1994 against his wife Sivakami for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(1A)(1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is not necessary to refer to the allegations made by him in the original petition. The petition was originally filed in the Sub Court, Madurai and after the constitution of the Family Court, it was transferred administratively to the file of the Family Court No. M. C. 71 of 1994 is filed by Sivakami, the wife for maintenance under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with his minor children It appears that the said Sivakami made a complaint to the Family Court that her husband was living with one Chitra and she is preventing her from leading a peaceful and happy marital life with her husband. When the matter came up for hearing, the Family Court direct­ed the original petitioner/husband to bring the said Chitra to Court on 4-10-1994. On 4-10-1994, the Family Court recorded the deposition of the husband. On the same day, the Family Court recorded this deposition of the said Chitra aged about 25 without specifying whether she is a witness for the petitioner before the Court or for the respondent. The said Chitra has deposed that she is staying with the order of No. 33, Vaigai Vadagarai since 20-11-1993 and that she knows tailoring. She stated chat bar parents are living in Mehaboob Palayam and as they wanted her to indulge in immoral activities, she left their house and took shelter under the petitioner in the original petition. The owner of the house in which the petitioner in the original petition lives is having sewing machines and her daughter is also doing tailoring work. The Court put a question to her whether it is not wrong on her part to leave her parents and stay in the house of the petitioner, she replied that as her parents wanted her to indulge in immoral activities and as she wanted to live with self respect she came and took shelter under the petitioner. She has also deposed that her parents have not come in search of her, not her brothers and sisters have come to meet her. She had studied upto Plus Two course.

(3.) THE reasoning of the Family Court is in the following words :