Thirumoorthy v. Sivagami
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.06.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P.(PD)No.3566 of 2016 Thirumoorthy .. Petitioner Vs.
Sivagami .. Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order of the Learned Family Court Judge, Erode made in I.A.No.727 of 2016 in H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2014 dated 17.09.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar For Respondent : No appearance
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order of the learned Family Court Judge, Erode made in I.A.No.727 of 2016 in H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2014 dated 17.09.2016.
2. The petitioner is the husband and respondent is the wife. The Respondent filed above H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Erode against the petitioner, for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner filed counter statement and is contesting the H.M.O.P. The trial commenced, the respondent examined herself as PW1 and filed an application in I.A.No.727/2016 under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC for permission to examine her minor son as P.W.2.
3. The petitioner opposed the said application. Both the respondent and the petitioner are living separately for more than seven years and minor son is with the custody of the respondent. The respondent will tutor the minor son to give evidence in her favour. Only for the past six months, the petitioner was permitted see the minor son once in a month as per the order of the court.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
5. The learned Judge, considering the averments made in the affidavit, counter affidavit and the judgement reported in (2007) 3
LW 443 in case of S.Amutha v. C.Manivanna Bhupathy, and the age of the minor son, allowed the application. Against the order passed in I.A.No.727/2016, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the minor son cannot be examined as witness and the minor son is with the respondent for the past seven years and he will give evidence in support of the respondent only. This contention is without merit.
6. In the said judgement reported in [(2007) 3 LW 443], this Court has given guidelines to follow while examining the minors. In view of the said judgement, it cannot be said that the minor son cannot be examined as a witness. This court must follow the guidelines in the judgement referred to above. The revision petition is not maintainable.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
19.06.2017 Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index :Yes/No jv/av
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
jv/av To The Family Court, Erode.
C.R.P.(PD)No.3566 of 2016 19.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in