1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Civil Revision Petition (MD).No.1597 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 Arunkumar . . Petitioner/Petitioner Vs. Anandhavalli Thro' her father and next friend Sundaramahalingam .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the petition and order passed in I.A.No.(Unnumbered) of 2011 in I.A.No.89 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.103 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai, dated 24.06.2011. For Petitioner : M/s.Eddy Embboss Law Firm ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 24.06.2011, passed in I.A.No.(Unnumbered) of 2011 in I.A.No.89 of 2010 in H.M.O.P.No.103 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.103 of 2010, on the learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai, against his wife/respondent for dissolution of marriage. Enquiry was taken up and P.W.1 was examined and D.W.1 has been examined in chief. She is yet to be cross-examined. In this stage, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the proceedings in I.A.No.89 of 2010 alleging that the respondent is mentally retarded woman and hence, she should not conduct the case on her own and hence, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.89 of 2010 to appoint father of the respondent as guardian for her daughter/respondent, that the Doctor Certificate in this regard has been marked as Ex.P1, that the mental alertness of the respondent has to be medically ascertained to conduct the case on her own, that the respondent has denied Ex.P1 in her counter and in her chief examination and that in order to elicit medical evidence in this context, the proceedings in I.A.No.89 of 2010 have to be re-opened. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai, rejected the application without taking on file. Hence, this revision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. In the rejection order, the Court below has stated that the petitioner did not take any steps to test the respondent by the Doctor, that the Court adviced the petitioner orally to test the respondent and examine Doctor as witness after the completion of cross examination of the respondent, for which, the counsel for the petitioner did not accept and that technically also this petition shall not be allowed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that inasmuch as the Court below has recorded an observation that the Court itself advised the petitioner to take steps for cross-examining the respondent medically and that there is no legal embargo for allowing the application in this stage. 7. A careful scrutiny of the above said circumstances would go to show that in order to establish one of the grounds raised in the main petition the petitioner has taken the present step to subject the respondent for medical examination for ascertaining her mental soundness, there could be no impediment for the Court to take the application on file and to pass orders on merits after hearing both parties. In such view of this matter, this Court is of the view that the order challenged before this Court is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. 8. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of rejection passed by the Court below. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to take the application on file, if it is otherwise in order, and to proceed with the same and pass orders on merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. srm Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai. C.R.P.(MD)No.1597 of 2011 Dated:11.08.2011 2P/2C RPB 29.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/