Disposed

Vinitharaj v. Ananthapadhmanaban

Madras HC3 Dec 2025CRP(MD)/3667/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife challenged the trial court's order allowing the husband to amend the statutory provision under which his marriage-nullity petition was filed. The High Court found no infirmity but directed the trial court to hear her afresh and pass orders afresh within the earlier deadline.

What did the court decide?

Revision disposed of with a direction that the petitioners be heard afresh by the trial court on 17.12.2025; no costs; connected CMP closed.

Vinitharaj Vs Ananthapadhmanaban — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRP(MD). No.3667 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 03.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD). No.3667 of 2025 and CMP(MD) No.19405 of 2025

Vinitharaj

... Petitioner

1.Ananthapadhmanaban

2.Rajkumar ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Impugned fair and decreetal order dated 21.11.2025 in respect of IA No.4 of 2025 in HMOP No.38 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For R1 : Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order

¶16

dated 21.11.2025 made in I.A.No.4 of 2025, in HMOP.No.38 of 2023 on

¶17

the fie of the Sub Court, Tirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶18

1/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRP(MD). No.3667 of 2025

¶21

2.The petitioner is the wife and the first respondent is the husband

¶22

and their marriage was solemnized on 01.06.2022. Due to matrimonial dispute arose between them, they are living separately and the first respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2022 before the Sub Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai District, seeking declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent is null and void, as the petitioner/wife has already married the second respondent and without getting an decree of divorce, she married the first respondent also.

¶23

3.During the course of trial, the first respondent/husband had filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC seeking to amend the provision, under which HMOP.No.38 of 2023 was filed, contending that the mistake committed by the first respondent is neither wilful nor wanton. The trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, had allowed the said application on 21.11.2025. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶24

2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

CRP(MD). No.3667 of 2025

¶27

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated all the

¶28

contentions set out in the memorandum of Civil Revision Petition and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for.

¶29

5.The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent has filed CRP(MD) No.607 of 2025 before this Court, seeking speedy disposal of the case in HMOP.No.38 of 2023 and this Court, vide order dated 03.03.2025, directing the trial Court to dispose of HMOP.No.38 of 2023 on or before 31.12.2025, had disposed of the said Civil Revision Petition.

¶30

6.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel

¶31

for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶32

7.Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the trial Court has rightly allowed the application in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in HMOP.No.38 of 2023 filed by the first respondent to amend the provision, under which, HMOP.No.38 of 2023 was filed and this Court also finds no

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

CRP(MD). No.3667 of 2025

¶36

illegality or infirmity in the order impugned passed by the trial Court. Even though this Court is not inclined to set aside the order dated 21.11.2025 made in I.A.No.4 of 2025, in HMOP.No.38 of 2023 on the fie of the Sub Court, Tirumangalam, Madurai District, in the interest of justice and also considering the hardship that would be caused to the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the petitioners could be given a chance to put their submission before the trial Court.

¶37

8.Accordingly, This Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of

¶38

with a direction to the trial Court to hear the petitioners afresh on 17.12.2025 in the above case and pass appropriate orders afresh, keeping in mind of the fact that this Court, vide order dated 03.03.2025 in CRP(MD) No.607 of 2025, had already directed to dispose of HMOP.No.38 of 2023 on or before 31.12.2025. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

Speaking : Yes / No 03.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mm

¶40

4/6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

CRP(MD). No.3667 of 2025

¶43

Note : Issue order copy on 08.12.2025

¶44

¶45

The Subordinate Judge, Tirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶46

5/6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

CRP(MD). No.3667 of 2025

¶49

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶50

¶51

CRP(MD). No.3667 of 2025

¶52

03.12.2025

¶53

6/6

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Vinitharaj v. Ananthapadhmanaban

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinitharaj v. Ananthapadhmanaban

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Green Garden Resort Vs Employees State Insurance Corportion

S.Vadivel(Died) Vs G.Soundararajan

M.Vinoth Kumar Vs Nil

Renjitham Vs a.Clain

Dr.Ilaiyaraaja Vs Mythri Movie Makers Rep by Naveen Yerneni Yalamanchili Ravi Shankar

Dr Ilaiyaraaja Vs Mythri Movie Makers Representd by Naveen Yemeni Yalamanchili Ravi Shankar