S.Lakshmi Narayanan v. Valarmathi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 25.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA & C.M.P.No. 7198 of 2025 S.Lakshmi Narayanan

...Petitioner

Vs.

Valarmathi

...Respondent

Prayer:

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.01.2025 made in IA.No.3 of 2024 in HMOP.No.169 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, Krishnagiri.

For Petitioner :

Mr. G.Ethirajulu 1/6

O R D E R

Challenging the dismissal of his application seeking to dismiss HMOP.No.169 of 2024, on the ground of lack of Jurisdiction the respondent / husband is before this Court.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on 03.11.2006 and out of wedlock two daughters named Devika and Dhipikha were born to them. The petitioner's contention is that the respondent is residing at Hosur. While so she has initiated proceedings for divorce on the file of the Family Court, Krishnagiri in OP.No.169 of 2024.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the Court at Krishnagiri does not have jurisdiction since neither are the petitioner or the respondent residing there, or was the marriage solemnised at that place, nor did they last reside there as husband and wife. He would submit that the daughters are studying at Maharishi Vidya Mandir School, Hosur, as a day scholars.

2/6

4. The address given at Krishnagiri is a cooked up address which has been made only for the purpose of filing HMOP. Therefore, he would seek to have the petition dismissed.

5. The respondent had filed a counter inter alia denying the contentions of the petitioner. The respondent would submit that she is working as a District Physical Education Inspector on deputation at Krishnagiri, for the last 2 years. The respondent / wife has produced copies of her rental agreement, Aadhar card and also the letter seeking the transfer of LPG connection to Krishnagiri.

6. The learned Judge taking into consideration the evidence and the documents dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein. Challenging the same, the civil revision petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel and perused the records. 3/6

8. The petitioner / husband has not produced any document to substantiate the contention that the wife is continuing to live only at Hosur and has a residence there. Admittedly, the petitioner had been deputed to Krishnagiri, where she has been working for the past 2 years.

9. That apart the petitioner is living / working abroad and a copy of the passport has been produced which shows that the petitioner is frequently traveling abroad.

10. For the aforesaid reasons I see no reason to interfere with the order. The civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 25.03.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan 4/6

To The Family Court, Krishnagiri.

P.T. ASHA, J, 5/6

kan 25.03.2025 6/6