1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 16.07.2025, passed by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode in HMOP No.221 of 2023, which has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner seeking for dissolution of marriage.

2. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is her husband and in the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner seeking for the rejection of HMOP No.221 of 2023, has been dismissed by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode.

3. The petitioner contends before this Court that HMOP No.221 of 2023 is not maintainable, since the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent has already attained finality by the passing of a decree for divorce by the U.S Court. According to the petitioner, the decree of divorce granted by the U.S trial Court was also challenged by the respondent before the Appellate Court in U.S which has also dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that she was not granted sufficient opportunity by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode, to defend the proceedings in HMOP No.221 of 2023.

4. The Trial Court under the impugned order has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC., on the ground that the judgment and decree obtained by the petitioner before the U.S Court is an ex-parte decree and the High Court has already held that an ex-parte decree cannot be a ground for rejection of a petition filed for dissolution of marriage.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the foreign decree obtained by the petitioner from the U.S trial Court under which the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has got dissolved. He would also submit that the respondent had also preferred an appeal against the dissolution of divorce decree granted by the U.S trial Court and the said appeal had also got dismissed. Therefore, he would submit that the O.P filed by the respondent in HMOP No.221 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode, is not maintainable as it would amount to res-judicata. According to him, the Trial Court has erroneously passed an impugned order dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He would also submit that eventhough the impugned order was passed as early as on 16.07.2025 in I.A.No.12 of 2025, the petitioner was furnished with the certified copy of the order by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode, only in January, 2026. According to him, without giving due consideration to the foreign judgment obtained by the petitioner under which the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has been dissolved, the Principal Sub Judge, Tiruchengode is now proceeding to pass a judgment in HMOP No.221 of 2023 which may be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the O.P filed by the respondent in HMOP No.221 of 2023 is maintainable as the judgment obtained by the petitioner before the U.S Court is an ex-parte judgment. He would also submit that in various decisions rendered by this Court, it has been held that in case of ex-parte judgments passed by foreign Courts, the question of relying upon those judgments for the purpose of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC., will not arise. According to him, the foreign judgment relied upon by the petitioner will fall under the exceptions to Section 13 of CPC and therefore, it cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent also submitted that various directions have already been issued by this Court in another Civil Revision Petitions between the same parties fixing time frame for disposal of HMOP No.221 of 2023. According to him, only in accordance with the said direction, the learned Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode is proceeding to pronounce the judgment in HMOP No.221 of 2023. He would submit that several opportunities were granted by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode to the petitioner to appear and defend the case but despite the same, the petitioner chose not to defend, and ultimately she was set ex-parte by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode on 21.06.2024. Therefore, according to him, at this belated stage, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order passed in an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He would also submit that there is also a delay on the part of the petitioner to file this Civil Revision Petition as the petitioner received the impugned order in the month of January 2026 itself but chose to file this Civil Revision Petition only in June 2026.

7. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the very same grounds were raised by this petitioner through another CRP filed in CRP No.7622 of 2025, seeking to strike of HMOP No.221 of 2023 pending on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode. According to him, the petitioner withdrew CRP No.7622 of 2025 without seeking any liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh CRP on the same grounds. He would also further submit that the petitioner was compelled to withdraw the earlier CRP in CRP No.7622 of 2025 since the Court had expressed its view that it is going to dismiss CRP No.7622 of 2025.

DISCUSSION:

8. This Court is deciding a matrimonial dispute and it cannot be equated to any other dispute. In a matrimonial dispute, the acutal truth can be unearthed only after both the parties contest the dispute on merits. A matrimonial dispute can be adjudicated by any court only after giving due consideration to all the materials available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner is having the benefit of a decree passed by U.S Court under which the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has been ordered to be dissolved. Admittedly, the respondent had also preferred an appeal against the said decree passed by the U.S trial Courts before the Appellate Court in the United States of America. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the Appellate Court in U.S on the ground of limitation and lack of jurisdiction. However, the decree obtained by the petitioner before the U.S Court was an exparte decree. Necessarily, when a Court is deciding the issue of dissolution of a marriage, as observed earlier, it has to consider all the materials available on record. Therefore, the decree passed by the U.S trial Court granting divorce in favour of the petitioner earlier has necessarily got to be considered by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode in HMOP No.221 of 2023, as the same cannot be ignored as it may result in travesty of justice. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has also not raised serious objection for the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode to give due consideration to the decree obtained by the petitioner before the U.S Court, subject to independent scrutiny by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode, with regard to its validity and legality.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner will have to be afforded an opportunity to make her submissions through her lawyer with regard to the maintainability of HMOP No.221 of 2023 in the light of the foreign judgement obtained by the petitioner before the U.S Court granting dissolution of marriage with the respondent. Necessarily, when this Court is directing the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode to give due consideration to the foreign judgment obtained by the petitioner in her favour, an opportunity must also be given to the petitioner to make her submissions through her lawyer with regard to maintainability of HMOP No.221 of 2023 filed by the respondent before the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode. However, since the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity earlier by the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode to contest the case on merits, but did not chose to contest the same diligently, this Court will have to necessarily fix a date for the petitioner to argue the matter with regard to maintainability of HMOP No.221 of 2023 and it has to be made clear by this Court that no further adjournments can be granted to the petitioner for arguing the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions has also submitted that the petitioner undertakes that if a specified date is fixed by this Court for arguments in HMOP No.221 of 2023, on that specified date without fail, the petitioner will argue her case through her counsel, failing which, the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode can proceed to pronounce the judgment in HMOP No.221 of 2023 without waiting for the arguments of the petitioner's counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions would submit that the petitioner is willing to argue HMOP No.221 of 2023 through her counsel on 09.07.2026 positively before the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode without fail and an undertaking has also been given by the petitioner that no further adjournments will be sought for from the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode for arguing HMOP No.221 of 2023. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent also on instructions submits that on 09.07.2026, the respondent’s counsel shall complete his arguments.

10. After recording the rival submissions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions:

                     (a) The Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode, is directed to consider, on merits and in accordance with law, the foreign Court judgments obtained in favour of the petitioner before the US trial Courts by treating them as court exhibits, while passing the final judgment in HMOP No.221 of 2023.

                     (b) The Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode is directed to list HMOP No.221 of 2023 for hearing on 09.07.2026, and on the said date, the petitioner's counsel as well as the respondent's counsel shall complete their respective submissions in HMOP No.221 of 2023 without fail. The date is fixed based on the undertaking given by the petitioner through her counsel before this Court. The Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode shall not grant any further adjournment to any of the parties.

                     (c) The Principal Sub Court, Tiruchengode, shall pronounce the judgment, on meris and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of completion of submissions by both the counsels in HMOP.No.221 of 2023, and ensure that both the parties get the judgment and decree copies as expeditiously as possible.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.