1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2243 and 2244 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 M.Rajvelsankaralingam .. Petitioner in both C.R.Ps. (Plaintiff) Vs. S.Rebecca Roshini Nisha .. Respondent in both C.R.Ps. (Defendant) Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal orders dated 11.11.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2011 in Original Suit No.409 of 2011 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy in both C.R.Ps. Senior counsel for Mr.P.Radhakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.K.Sekar in both C.R.Ps. COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2011 in Original Suit No.409 of 2011 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.409 of 2011 on the file of the Court below so as to declare that there is no valid and lawful marriage held in between him and defendant. In Original Suit No.409 of 2011, on the side of the plaintiff, evidence has been let in and subsequently closed and in order to recall P.W.1, the plaintiff and also to re-open the case on the side of the plaintiff, these petitions have been filed in Interlocutory Application Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2011. The Court below has allowed the petitions. Against the orders passed by the Court below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred at the instance of the respondent/ plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that with regard to conversion as well as marriage, sufficient questions have been put to the plaintiff, who has been examined as P.W.1 and the present petitions have been filed so as to fill up the lacuna and therefore these petitions cannot be entertained, but the Court below without considering the nature of cross-examination already done to P.W.1 has erroneously allowed these petitions and therefore the orders passed by the Court below are liable to be interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner/defendant has contended that the respondent, by birth, is a Christian and prior to marriage in between her and plaintiff, she converted into Hinduism and became a Hindu and subsequently marriage has been performed as per Hindu rites and custom and thereafter both the plaintiff and defendant have lived together and both of them have followed practice of Hinduism and under the said circumstances, certain questions have been omitted to put to P.W.1 by way of cross-examination and due to that these petitions have been filed and the Court below after considering the nature of the dispute, which involves in the present case has rightly allowed the petitions and therefore the orders passed by the Court below need not be interfered with. 5. The consistent case of the defendant is that she is a Christian by birth and for the purpose of marrying the plaintiff, she converted into Hindu and subsequently, marriage has been conducted as per Hindu rites and custom. 6. The only point that has to be decided in the present case is as to whether a valid marriage has been performed in between the plaintiff and defendant? The plaintiff is bound to prove that there is no valid and lawful marriage. The defendant is bound to prove that after having conversion from Christianity, the marriage in question has been performed as per Hindu rites and custom. These petitions have been filed only for the purpose of reopening and also recalling P.W.1. At this juncture, it would be more apposite to look into the cross-examination made to the plaintiff, who has been examined as P.W.1. In the cross-examination, the following vital question has been put to him as to whether the marriage between him and the defendant has been performed in accordance with the Hindu rites and custom? The specific answer given by P.W.1 is that their marriage has been performed in accordance with the Hindu rites and custom. 7. As pointed out earlier, the entire burden lies upon the defendant to prove her alleged conversion prior to marriage. These petitions have been filed so as to put some questions with regard to subsequent conduct of the plaintiff and defendant on the basis of Hindu rites and custom. Since the only point that winched to the fore in the present suit is as to whether a valid marriage has been performed between the plaintiff and defendant and since the entire burden lies upon the defendant with regard to conversion coupled with the admission made by P.W.1 to the effect that the marriage has been performed in accordance with the Hindu rites and custom, the alleged subsequent practice as well as conduct of the plaintiff and defendant are not at all necessary for the purpose of deciding the real dispute that exists between the parties. Therefore the reason given on the side of the respondent/petitioner/defendant so as to recall P.W.1 as well as reopen the case on the side of the plaintiff is not correct and the Court below without considering the apple of discord between the parties and also the vital questions to be decided in the present case, has erroneously allowed these petitions and therefore the orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside. 8. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed without costs and the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2011 in Original Suit No.409 of 2011 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul are set aside and the petitions filed in Interlocutory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Application Nos.1009 and 1010 of 2011 in Original Suit No.409 of 2011 are dismissed. However the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul is directed to pass Judgment on merits without having adherence in respect of the observations made in this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Principal District Munsif, Dindigul. +2 CC to Mr.D.Radhakrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.44129 smn COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.2243 and 2244 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 16.12.2011 TR : 21.12.2011 : 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/