S KUMARAN Vs. G UMA MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the learned District Munsif, Sivakasi to number the original suit and to take the suit on file.

(2.) The 1st petitioner is the son of the petitioners 2 and 3. The 1st respondent is the daughter of the respondents 2 and 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents were working as daily labourers under the 2nd petitioner, who is running a fireworks concern at Vembakottai. The 1st respondent often pestered the 1st petitioner to get a job for her, as she has studied upto 10th standard and hence, the 1st petitioner arranged a house keeping job in a bungalow at Bangalore and she joined in that job without informing the same to her parents on 09.09.2016. While so, the respondents 2 and 3 gave a complaint to the Police for girl missing. Subsequently, when the 1st petitioner came to know about the complaint given by the respondents 2 and 3 before the Police, the 1st petitioner asked the 1st respondent as to whether she informed about her stay and job to the respondents 2 and 3. She replied that she did not disclose about anything to her parents. Realizing the seriousness, the 1st respondent afraid of meeting the situation and requested the 1st petitioner to help her. Hence, the 1st petitioner took the 1st defendant to Sivakasi on 04.11.2016. The 2nd and 3rd respondents mistook that the 1st petitioner had lead a matrimonial life with the 1st respondent at Bangalore and therefore, with the help of their henchmen and police, they tortured him to marry the 1st respondent and hence, on the very same day ie., on 04.11.2016, the 1st petitioner tied "Thali" on the 1st respondent under coercion and against his will and wish. But, the rituals and customs of a Hindu Marriage were not followed. Immediately after such incident, the 1st petitioner handed over the 1st respondent to her parents and returned back to his work place at Bangalore. In this regard, the 1st petitioner has sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar on 10.12016. Subsequently, the petitioners came to know that the respondents have pre- planned and has been acting upon with a mala fide intention to grab money and wealth from the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have sought to prefer the suit for the following reliefs:

(3.) When the petitioners presented the plaint, it was returned by the Court below pointing out certain defects and questioning the maintainability. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made an endorsement to the effect that as the 1st petitioner was unable to file a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaration of the marriage as null and void, within one year from the date of marriage, they have presented the present plaint for the above said reliefs. The Court below, by a docket order dated 22.12.2017, again returned the plaint for complying with the earlier directions. Hurriedly, without there being any specific order about the rejection of the plaint, the petitioners have come up with this civil revision petition challenging the said docket order and seeking a direction to the Court below to number the suit. When this Court pointed out that it is not an order to be challenged, the learned counsel for the petitioners erased the said relief and requested this Court to consider the relief of direction.