Should a court preemptively deny a case its due trial, or should it number a petition even when doubts arise?

Background Story

The "petitioner, R. Gnana Sundari", and the "respondent, T. Yesuraj", both serve in the police force and were married on March 23, 2011, according to the petitioner’s claims. However, the respondent filed for divorce in 2019, alleging they were married under Christian rites in 2010. The petitioner challenged this by invoking Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to seek restitution of conjugal rights, asserting that both parties are Hindus. (C.R.P(PD) 3547/2024 Before the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V Lakshminarayan J)

The Family Court at Chennai refused to number her petition, questioning its maintainability based on her religion.

Legal Issue

Whether the Family Court can refuse to number a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act based on a religious discrepancy without properly addressing the issue during trial.

Argument of Parties

• Petitioner (R. Gnana Sundari): Both parties are Hindus, supported by documents like school transfer certificates, and contested that the court’s refusal to number her petition was premature.
• She argued that the court must number the petition and let the "trial" address the "issues" raised regarding the "marriage's validity".
• Respondent (T. Yesuraj): Initiated a divorce petition on the grounds that they were married under Christian rites, thus challenging the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Court's Observation

Requiring the petitioner to establish proof of her religion at the time of filing a petition is erroneous. Such issues must be determined during trial after a proper hearing of both parties, not preemptively by the registry.        

The Madras High Court, held that the Family Court had overstepped by refusing to number the petition.         

The Court cited the precedent of Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant to emphasize that a court should not act as though it is a party to litigation.         

The primary responsibility of a court at the procedural stage is to proceed with the averments made, rather than prematurely demand proof, such as establishing the religion of the petitioner.        

Court's Order

• The court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and, directed the Principal Family Court, Chennai, to number the petition filed by the petitioner.
• It emphasized that jurisdiction is based on the averments in the petition and should not be obstructed by demanding proof prematurely.

Seema Bhatnagar