S AMUTHA Vs. C MANIVANNA BHUPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of dismissal dated 13. 4. 2006 passed in I. A. No. 98 of 2006 in H. M. O. P. No. 76 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Erode.

(2.) THIS is a case of an husband and wife fighting over the matrimonial cause relating to the dissolution of their marriage before the trial Court and have put their child on a burner unmindful of its future consequences. This is not a case where the King Solomon's rule can be applied and ask the child to be cut by a sword to find out the real mother. But in this case, the real father and the mother are fighting and the child is called as a witness to speak about the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the pleadings filed by them before the trial Court. The father has brought the minor son and had put him on the witness stand to speak against his mother and the mother has objected to the same. The trial Court has brushed aside the objection of the mother (the revision petitioner herein) and held that the child witness was competent to speak about the dispute between the wife (petitioner) and the husband (respondent) and taken on record the sworn affidavit filed by the minor. The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition is whether such an action is permissible in law.

(3.) NOW reverting to certain basic facts of the case: the revision petitioner is the wife and she has filed the present Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 13. 4. 2006 passed by the Sub-Court, Erode, in I. A. No. 98 of 2006 in H. M. O. P. No. 76 of 2005. The respondent herein is the husband, who had filed a petition under Section 13 (1) read with Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for a decree of divorce from the revision petitioner/wife. The said petition was taken on file as H. M. O. P. No. 76 of 2005. The main ground on which the Original Petition was filed was that the revision petitioner/wife had deserted the respondent/husband and gone to her parents' house on 19. 4. 2005 without any valid reason. During the subsistence of the marriage, which took place on 15. 11. 1992, the petitioner and the respondent had two children out of which one was a male child, viz. , Aravind, studying fifth standard and the other was a female child, viz. , Suganthi, studying third standard on the date of the filing of the petition.