Include lower court judge as respondent: Divorcee petitioner

Also, noting that admittedly, the order passed by the I Additional District Judge, was not in favour of the petitioner, the judge said, “If the request of the petitioner is acceded to, there will be a lacuna in the administration of justice. By taking this case as a precedent, other parties who fail to succeed in the case will start knocking at the doors of this court with the similar prayer.”

“In other words, in case the finding rendered by the District Judge is in his favour and the wife comes with the similar petition, will it be justified? In that process, there will be no end to the proceedings and the Judicial Officers will certainly be scared to discharge their official duty and always feel that Damocles sword is hanging over their heads,” Justice Vaidyanathan added.

As per the case, the petitioner Venkatesan P, married Egavalli on July 17, 1991. But they separated in 2002. Since then, she has been living with her father. On account of her long separation, Venkatesan filed a plea for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas Egavalli had filed for divorce on the ground that he is impotent and is not fit to lead matrimonial life.

The subordinate judge, Tiruvallur, on considering the facts and circumstances of the entire case, had passed a common order on January 22, 2018, in favour of Egavalli by dissolving the marriage. Aggrieved, Venkatesan had filed an appeal before the I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur. She also concluded on June 27, 2019 that the wife had duly established the ‘animus deserendi’ and upheld the order passed by the subordinate judge.

Following this, the petitioner approached the HC, questioning the order of the District Judge. Advancing his argument as Party-in-Person he submitted that the District Judge, has deliberately violated the norms and provisions in the administration of justice and therefore, the judgment rendered by her does not fall under the category of ‘error in the judgment’.