R SRIDHARAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought for a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding with the trial in O.P.No.569 of 2004 on its file.

(2.) FACTS leading to the present Writ Peti-tion are as follows:The petitioner is a domicile in United States of America, since 1992 and is working as a Software Engineer. The second respon-dent is known to their family since childhood. Marriage between the parties to this lis was arranged by elders. The second respondent, her parents and relatives came to United States and the marriage was performed on 17.04.2002 and registered on 30.07.2002. The second respondent came to India in the sec-ond week of January 2003 for a short visit promising to return after completing a dance programme. But she began to act in films and with ulterior motive, she filed O.P.NO.569 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai for divorce under the Hindu Mar-riage Act, alleging cruelty. Since he was residing in United States, summons were not served and therefore, the second respondent obtained an exparte decree of divorce on 19.07.2004. On his application, the order was set aside on 23.09.2004 and the O.P., was restored. Apprehending trial, the second re-spondent adopted dilatory tactics and filed C.R.P.(PD)No.1695 of 2004, stating that the proceedings of the Family Court should not be published by the Media and obtained an in-terim stay. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit, stating that he has no objection for the proceedings be held in camera and did not want any publicity. Therefore, by order dated 29.10.2004, this Court vacated the interim stay and the O.P., was ready for trial. Inspite of several adjournments, the second respon-dent has not appeared and in these circum-stances, the petitioner was constrained to file the present Writ Petition for Prohibition, pro-hibiting the Family Court from proceeding with the trial in O.P.NO.56 of 2004.

(3.) THE Second respondent, while rebut-ting the averments made in Paragraph 6(b), 6(c) and 6(d) of the affidavit filed by the peti-tioner, has submitted that the petitioner has not explained as to how the O.P., is not main-tainable. According to her, as the parties are governed by the personal laws applicable to them, the rights and obligations arising there from, can be enforced in the Forums created under the Statutes alone and therefore, the Principal Family Court, Chennai is empow-ered to adjudicate the dispute. THE second re-spondent has further submitted, that though the petitioner has not raised the plea of ouster of jurisdiction in the counter affidavit filed in support of the Original Petition, before the Family Court, however, he has mentioned about the application of Foreign Marriages Act, 1969 and in particular Section 18(1) of the said Act. THE second respondent has fur-ther submitted that the marriage was not performed before the Marriage Officer notified under the said Act and it was also not regis-tered before him, as required under the said law and therefore, the provisions of Foreign Marriages Act will not apply to the facts of this case. As a matter of fact, the Family Court itself can decide both the issues regarding ju-risdiction and the merits of the case and therefore, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that once the petitioner submits himself to the jurisdic-tion of the Court by filing a counter statement on merits with documents in support of his case, it is not open to 'him to stall the proceed-ings, by instituting a Writ Petition before this Court and under these circumstances, the pe-titioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition.