THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5121 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in I.A. No.517 of 2008 in F.C.O.P. No.1098 of 2007 dated 28.08.2008. The petitioner herein filed a petition, under Order 7 Rule XI- A read with Section 151 C.P.C, praying the Court to reject the petition in F.C.O.P. No.1098 of 2007 on the ground of want of cause of action. O.P. No.1098 of 2007 was filed by the respondent, who is none other than the petitioner’s daughter, claiming Rs.20 lakhs towards marriage expenses. In the counter affidavit, filed in support of the I.A, the petitioner herein asserted that it was for him to choose a match for his daughter; perform the marriage within his financial capacity; the respondent was an employee; she had never acted as an obedient and honest daughter to the petitioner; and, as such, she was not entitled for the exorbitant claim. In her counter affidavit, the respondent herein denied the allegations, and contended that the petitioner was seeking to evade his moral obligations and responsibilities to perform the marriage of the respondent. She also stated that F.C.O.P. No.1010 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner seeking divorce against the mother of the respondent; the respondent along with her sister, brother and mother were necked out of the house by the petitioner; she was of marriageable age and as such was constrained to file the O.P. against her father towards her marriage expenses. The Court below observed that it was the pious obligation of the petitioner to perform the marriage of the respondent; it was evident from the rival claims that the petitioner did not take care of the respondent and made no attempt to discharge his pious obligations in selecting a match for his daughter and perform her marriage; and, under such circumstances, there was nothing wrong on the part of the respondent’s daughter to claim marriage expenses from her father. The Court below was of the view that the petition did not suffer from any infirmities, and there was no ground to consider the prayer of the petitioner. Whether or not the petitioner herein had failed to discharge his obligations towards his children; what would be the extent of expenses which he would have to incur for the marriage of his daughter etc., are all matters which can be gone into by the Family Court only after evidence is adduced in this regard. While dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner in I.A. No.517 of 2008 to reject the petition in O.P.1098 of 2007, cannot be faulted, the Court below was not justified in making observations, in the said I.A, that the petitioner herein had failed to discharge his obligations to perform the marriage of the respondent for these are also matters which can be examined only after evidence is adduced in the said O.P. While the challenge to the dismissal of I.A. No.517 of 2008 in F.C.O.P. No.1098 of 2007 must fail, it is made clear that the Family Court, Hyderabad shall, after permitting evidence to be let in by either parties, decide F.C.O.P. No.1098 of 2007 uninfluenced by any observations made in the order passed in I.A. No.517 of 2008 in F.C.O.P. No.1098of 2007 dated 28.08.2008. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 17th June 2010 MRKR