- (1.) THE petitioner in the above revision filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, which is yet to be numbered but had to be posted for orders regarding the maintainability, challenges the return of the papers said to have been made by an endorsement of the Sherishtadar of Family Court, Madras dt. 15.6.1993. THE Registry of this Court has entertained a doubt regarding the maintainability of this revision and hence this revision was directed by me to be posted for orders.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner initially contended that the second respondent in the above revision, viz., the Sherishtadar of Family Court, Madras is not the competent authority to pass orders even for returning the papers and that if at all it is for the presiding officer of the Family Court to pass such orders in this regard. At this stage, this Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the objection is only that the Sheristadar has passed the orders, the papers filed into this Court can be taken back and re-presented before the Family Court, so that a direction can be issued to the presiding officer himself to deal with the matter and pass appropriate orders. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would at this stage submit that even the re-presentation, the petitioner is not prepared to do it in person before the Family Court, that he would like to have the same either re-presented through counsel or sent by registered post and that therefore, it becomes necessary for this Court to decide as a matter of principle, the vital question raised in the matter as to whether an applicant before a Family Court can send his application by registered post and if so sent, the Family Court is obliged to entertain the same and pass orders on such application. A few facts confined to the issue in question alone may be referred to without going into the details of the merits of the claim: The petitioner claims to be the wife of Thaika Sahib and the petitioner as well as the respondents are Muslims governed by the Muslim Personal Law and the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939. The petitioner also claims to have married the respondent in the year 1954 at Keelakarai in Ramanathapuram District, according to Muslim Law. Both the petitioner and the respondent are stated to be residing at Madras. The petitioner would allege illtreatment and claim to have borne seven children, of which four are sons and three are daughters for the respondents and the last son was said to be 23 years old. It is also claimed that the respondent had been paying every month a specific amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards her day to day expenses, that the same has been stopped for the past one year and that all that has been done by the respondent made the life of the petitioner miserable. Consequently, the petitioner prays for a decree (a) for dissolving the marriage performed as per the Muslim Law in the year 1954 between the petitioner and the respondent, and (b) for passing appropriate orders regarding the maintenance and alimony payable by the respondent to the petitioner and for costs.
(3.) THE above petition was admittedly sent by registered post and it is only the said original petition in the form of an ?O.P? that has been returned with the endorsement as hereunder:? ?Returned, Received by post. To be presented in person by the concerned party.?;