Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

S. Thanikodi Vs. Ramuthayee

S. Thanikodi vs Ramuthayee

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 11, 1985
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/790174

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.S.A. No. 76 of 1984
Subject
Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - The Courts below have clearly found that the wife has filed a suit for maintenance and that this application for restitution is filed as a counterblast to that suit for maintenance. The failure to make such an attempt will no doubt amount to an omission, but it will not take away the jurisdiction of the Court ...

Key legal issue
Family
Acts & sections
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 and 23(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Thanikodi

Advocate K.J. Ghandran, Adv.

Respondent

Ramuthayee

Legal References

Acts
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 and 23(2)
Reported In
AIR1986Mad263

Excerpt

- - the courts below have clearly found that the wife has filed a suit for maintenance and that this application for restitution is filed as a counterblast to that suit for maintenance. the failure to make such an attempt will no doubt amount to an omission, but it will not take away the jurisdiction of the court to pass a decree for restitution or to dismiss a claim for restitution.1. this civil misceilaneous second appeal is directed against the order of the learned first additional subordinate judge, madurai, dismissing the petition by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. the husband-appellant filed a petition against the wife, the respondent, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. the courts below have clearly found that the wife has filed a suit for maintenance and that this application for restitution is filed as a counterblast to that suit for maintenance.2. the only ground, the counsel for the appellant takes is that the courts below erred in not attempting a reconciliation between the parties. it is no doubt true that s. 23(2) of the hindu marriage act casts a duty on the court in the first instance, in a matrimonial cause, to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. but, it. is only when the courts find that there may be some chance of saving the marriage that the court would try to make a rapprochement and not otherwise. the courts below have not attempted reconciliation obviously because they did not find any chance of the parties coming together. the failure to make such an attempt will no doubt amount to an omission, but it will not take away the jurisdiction of the court to pass a decree for restitution or to dismiss a claim for restitution. no substantial question of law arises in this case. the civil miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed in limine.3. appeal dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. This Civil MisceIlaneous Second Appeal is directed against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing the petition by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband-appellant filed a petition against the wife, the respondent, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Courts below have clearly found that the wife has filed a suit for maintenance and that this application for restitution is filed as a counterblast to that suit for maintenance.

2. The only ground, the counsel for the appellant takes is that the Courts below erred in not attempting a reconciliation between the parties. It is no doubt true that S. 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act casts a duty on the Court in the first instance, in a matrimonial cause, to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. But, it. is only when the Courts find that there may be some chance of saving the marriage that the Court would try to make a rapprochement and not otherwise. The Courts below have not attempted reconciliation obviously because they did not find any chance of the parties coming together. The failure to make such an attempt will no doubt amount to an omission, but it will not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to pass a decree for restitution or to dismiss a claim for restitution. No substantial question of law arises in this case. The civil miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed in limine.

3. Appeal dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial