IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.2.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD).No.724 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.6977 2006 J.Lakshmi Priya ... Petitioner/1st Respondent vs. 1.Krishnakumar 2.Janardhanan ... Respondents /Petitioner and 2nd Respondent This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India, against the order dated 6.2.2006 passed in I.A.No.10512 of 2005 in HMOP No.124 of 2004 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : No appearance ORDER Inveighing the order dated 6.2.2006 passed in I.A.No.10512 of 2005 in HMOP No.124 of 2004 by the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Succinctly and precisely the long and short of the facts, which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition, would run thus:- The first respondent herein filed the H.M.O.P.No.124 of 2004 before the Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu, under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, seeking the following relief: to declare that the marriage took place between the petitioner and the first respondent on 5.9.2003 at Subamangala Kalyana Mandapam (Opp to CSI Church) Tholkapiyar Street, Pammal, Chennai-75 as per Hibndu rites is null and void. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ While so, during the pendency of the said petition, the same first respondent filed the I.A.No.No.10512 of 2005 seeking to amend the O.P. so as to incorporate the alternative prayer for divorce. After hearing both sides, the lower Court allowed the I.A. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is focussed by the respondent in the O.P. on various grounds inter alia thus: the lower Court committed error in allowing contradictory stands to be taken by the first respondent herein; at the first instance the first respondent has come forward with the case that the marriage itself is null and void, however, in the I.A.he has come forward with the case that the divorce might be granted in his favour on the ground of cruelty. 3. Despite printing the names of both sides, no one appeared. 4. Perused the available records including the order of the lower Court, which would highlight that the lower Court, after considering the pros and cons of the matter, was of the opinion that the alternative prayer for divorce could be permitted to be added in the H.M.O.P. 5. The gist and kernal of the case of the first respondent in the original HMOP was that without the voluntary consent of the petitioner herein, the marriage was solemnised, as she was not in a stable state of mind; she was taking, at the relevant time, treatment for her mental illness in various hospitals. However, in the I.A., he prays for including the alternative prayer for divorce, based on cruelty. The grounds of cruelty were found set out in the original petition itself, which the trial Court took into account while allowing the application. 6. I am of the considered opinion that the first respondent should be given the liberty of seeking alternative prayer. Simply because he asked for alternative prayer, the revision petitioner cannot dub or label it as an attempt on the part of the first respondent to change the entire cause of action in the O.P. In fact, seeking such alternative relief would avoid multiplicity of proceedings also. Hence, I could see no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 7. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 6.2.2006 passed in I.A.No.10512 of 2005 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in HMOP No.124 of 2004 by the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Msk To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu RSM (CO) km/3.3. C.R.P.(PD).No.724 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/