Wife's revision against dismissal of her application to summon a witness in husband's divorce petition. The court held her adultery allegations raised only after filing for restitution of conjugal rights appeared to be an afterthought and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P(MD)No.3472 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
C.R.P(MD)No.3472 of 2025 and
C.M.P(MD)No.18763 of 2025
S.Anbumeena ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Respondent
Vs.
V.Selvam ...Respondent/Respondent/ Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2023 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sattur, Virudhunagar District dated 01.11.2025 and allow this civil revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji
ORDER
The present civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2023 dated 01.11.2025 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
1/4
C.R.P(MD)No.3472 of 2025
had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent and the respondent has filed an H.M.O.P., for divorce. He submits that the petitioner filed an application to summon a material witness, who resides in the matrimonial home and whose testimony is crucial. However, the said application was dismissed. He submits that the Court below without appreciating the case of the petitioner as pleaded in her counter affidavit in H.M.O.P. filed by the husband. Hence, he seeks indulgence of the order passed by the Court below.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials on record.
4. The Court below has found that the statements made in the counter filed in the main H.M.O.P are not sufficient to issue a warrant to summon the witness as indicated. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner earlier filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and only thereafter the respondents had initiated the proceedings for divorce. If it is the claim of the petitioner that the respondent was leading an
2/4
C.R.P(MD)No.3472 of 2025
adulterous life, the petitioner would have definitely filed an O.P. for divorce and not for restitution of conjugal rights. Only after the respondent filed the petition for divorce has the petitioner raised such allegations, which prima facie appears to be an afterthought intended to harass not only the respondent but also a third party.
24.11.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn
To
2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
3/4
C.R.P(MD)No.3472 of 2025
K.KUMARESH BABU,J.
SN
C.R.P(MD)No.3472 of 2025
24.11.2025
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly refused to summon a material witness from the matrimonial home by dismissing the petitioner's application in the divorce H.M.O.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Anbumeena
V.Selvam
K.Kumaresh Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
