K.KRISHNAPRIYAN Vs. XXX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are husband and wife. The revision petitioners decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and presented a petition under Sec. 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'Act') before the learned Subordinate Judge, Ambattur. The said O.P. was numbered as HMOP. No.77 of 2024. However, when the O.P was taken up for final hearing, the Court, finding that the wife/2nd petitioner was a Muslim, therefore, posted the case for arguments on maintainability. Not satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Sub Judge, relying on Sec. 2 of the Act, held that the Act would apply only to persons who are Hindus by religion, or Buddhist, or Jain, or Sikh and domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends and such person not being Muslim, Christian, Parsi, Jew by religion, dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

(2.) I have heard Mr.V.M.Venkatramana, learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that though the second revision petitioner viz., the wife was a Muslim by birth, she has married the first petitioner in accordance with Hindu customs and rites, the marriage itself being solemnized at Arulmighu Balamurugan Temple, Mogappair West, Chennai. He would therefore state that the learned Sub Judge, Ambattur failed to advert his attention to the fact that when the second petitioner never claims to be a Muslim, but only a Hindu at the time of their marriage and the marriage also having been solemnized in a manner acceptable and permissible under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, there was nothing improper for the petitioners to approach the Court invoking Sec. 13(B) of the Act or muchless, any of the other provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.