CMA/2522/2022 of K. Srinivasan Vs V. Vedavalli on 17 September 2026

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The unsuccessful husband before the V Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai in H.M.O.P.No.3053 of 2014 is the appellant before this Court.

2. The appellant had filed the H.M.O.P.No.3053 of 2014 under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act to declare the marriage between him and the respondent herein held on 14.06.2010 as null and void.

3. It is the case of the appellant that he had studied up to the 10th standard and joined the Police Department in the year 1999. Thereafter, he had been removed from service in the year 2002 as he was absent from work unauthorisedly and had been declared a deserter. In the year 2005, the appellant had married one Revathy, D/o.Balasubramanian at Vadapalani Murugan temple. The same was a love marriage. It is his case that, out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born on 17.06.2006 and thereafter a son was born. In the year 2005, the appellant had married the said Revathy without the knowledge of his parents and relatives. His brother, one Venkatesan, who was a Sub Inspector of Police, had forced him to marry the respondent herein. He had threatened the appellant and stated that he could not approve of his marriage with Revathy, as she belonged to another community. The said Venkatesan had also threatened that he would do away with the appellant if he did not marry the respondent. Therefore, the appellant was forced to marry the respondent on 14.06.2010. It is his case that the respondent was made aware that he was already married and had a wife and that it was only on account of the force exerted by his brother that he had to marry the respondent.

4. It is the further case of the appellant that the respondent had picked up quarrels and had left him. Further, the appellant would submit that the respondent and his brother Venkatesan had forced the appellant’s mother to sell the house and pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent towards full and final settlement for herself and the child born to her on 20.06.2012. The appellant would submit that he has nothing to do with the respondent as their marriage was void. Meanwhile, the appellant, who had challenged his dismissal from service, was reinstated after prolonged litigation and had joined duty on 29.01.2014. The appellant would submit that, after coming to know of the above facts, the respondent had started making complaints against him before his superior officers. On

20.05.2014, she had also submitted a false report before the All Women Police Inspector, Vysarpadi against the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has come forward with the petition to declare the marriage between him and the respondent as null and void.

5. The respondent had filed a counter denying the allegations contained in the petition. It is her contention that it is only the marriage conducted between her and the appellant which was valid, as their marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu Rites and Customs in the presence of the parents, relatives and well wishers of both families. The respondent would submit that after the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife in the appellant’s house. Thereafter, she had conceived and left for her parents’ house for delivery. Out of this wedlock, a daughter was born to them. Thereafter, the respondent had returned to the appellant’s house along with the child. However, the appellant left home and never visited the respondent and her daughter. Thereafter, the respondent, on enquiry, came to know that the appellant was working in the Special Police Force and that he had married another woman without the knowledge of the respondent. She gave a police complaint to the concerned police station. The respondent would, in clear terms, state that her marriage with the appellant was a valid one. It is the petitioner who has been acting with cruelty by not visiting the respondent and her child, quarrelling with her and physically abusing her. The petitioner would submit that, during one such episode, the appellant had beaten the respondent and pushed her out of the matrimonial home. Therefore, she has been constrained to live in her parents’ house. The respondent later came to know that the appellant is living with one Revathy. She would submit that the marriage between herself and the appellant was a valid marriage.

6. The petitioner had examined as P.W1 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. The respondent had examined as R.W1 and marked Exs.R1 to R4. The Court below had framed the following points for consideration. “1. Whether the petitioner has proved the alleged marriage between the petitioner with one Revathy as valid and lawful in accordance with law?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled the declaratory relief as against the respondent as prayed for?”

7. On an extensive analysis of the evidence both documentary as well as pleadings, the Court below held that the appellant had not proved his case and consequently, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the marriage between the appellant and Revathi took place as early as in the year 2005, nearly five years prior to the marriage of the respondent herein and was a valid marriage. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter and son were born to him. The appellant had been threatened into marrying the respondent and therefore the marriage is a void marriage. He would submit that the factum of marriage has been proved through the wedding invitation, ration card and the oral evidence of P.W.1.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the appellant has not proved his marriage to the said Revathy. The documents relied upon by the appellant would, by no stretch of imagination, be termed as documents evidencing the marriage between the appellant and the said Revathy. Once the same has not been proved, then it is only the respondent who is to be treated as the legally wedded wife as the appellant has admitted his marriage to her. Therefore, he would seek to have the appeal dismissed.

10. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

11. The appellant has approached the Family Court to have the marriage between him and the respondent declared null and void on the ground that the appellant’s marriage with Revathi was much prior in point of time to that between the appellant and the respondent. However, during cross examination, when a question was put to the appellant as to why the petition had been filed, the appellant replied as follows: “ehd; ,e;j kDit vjw;fhf jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd; vd;why ; vd;Dld ; thH khl;nld ; vd;Wbrhy;yptpl;L vd;dplkpUe;J U:/4 yl;rk ; bgw;Wf;bfhz;L ve;j cwt[k; ntz;lhbkd;W

vGjpbfhLj;Jtpl;L

vjph;kDjhuh; brd;Wtpl;lhh;/ kPz;Lk ; vd;id vjph;kDjhuh ; ntiy bra;atplhky ; bjhy;iy gLj;jpajhy ; ehd ; ,e;j kDit jhf;fy; bra;njd;/”

The above deposition would clearly show that the appellant had sought to have the marriage declared legally void on account of the fact that the respondent, after receiving a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and promising not to return to the appellant, had gone back on her word.

12. The appellant, who claims to have married Revathy, has not cared to give the date of the marriage between him and the said Revathy in his petition. However, he has given the date of marriage between himself and the respondent herein. That apart, in his pleadings, he would submit that a daughter was born to him on 17.06.2006 and thereafter, a son. However, nowhere in the petition has the appellant given the date on which the son was born to him. To prove the factum of marriage between the appellant and the said Revathy, the appellant would press into service the Family Card for the period 2005-2009 issued by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department. On perusal of the same, it would show that the appellant has not described his relationship with the said Revathy and Pavithra. In the birth certificate of the said Pavithra, the full permanent residential address is shown as Saidapet and the address of the parents at the time of the birth of the child has been kept blank. That apart, it is to be noted that the appellant, who had claimed that he had married the respondent under threat and coercion, had begotten a daughter through her and in the year 2012, a document was created wherein she has been referred to as the appellant’s wife. The document does not make any mention about the previous marriage, though the document in question was an agreement to break up the marriage.

13. The reason for not disclosing the date of the marriage with the said Revathi appears to be for oblique motives. The marriage invitation appears to be one created after the filing of the petition. We are constrained to make this observation since, at the time of filing of the original petition, neither the marriage invitation nor the marriage photos, which are the relevant documents, had been filed before the Court. It is only after the papers were returned for compliance that the petition was represented along with the said documents. That apart, the appellant has kept away the most important witness, namely, Revathi, with whom the appellant alleges that he had contracted marriage in the year 2005. The marriage with the respondent has been accepted even by the appellant himself, and he only seeks to have the marriage declared null and void on account of the fact that he had earlier married another woman.

14. Considering the fact that the appellant has failed to prove his case, the Family Court has rightly rejected his petition. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Family Court is found to be in order. We see no reason to interfere with the said well-considered order. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 17-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRN To The V Additional Judge, Family Court Chennai

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. SRN CMA No. 2522 of 2022 17-09-2026