Dismissed¶25

C.Aishwarya v. P.Anand

Madras HC19 Jan 2026CRP/151/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRP.No.151 of 2026 / CMP.No.682 of 2026 (19.01.2026, S. Sounthar J.), Article 227 revision dismissed. Keywords: production of additional documents; leave to produce documents; relevancy cannot be decided at this stage; objection to marking of documents; documents marked subject to relevancy and proof; usefulness decided at final disposal; Family Court divorce petition HMOP.No.1723 of 2023; IA.No.4/2024; II Additional Principal Family Court Chennai; husband-wife; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The relevancy of a document cannot be decided at the stage of the application seeking leave to produce additional documents. ¶22

C.Aishwarya Vs P.Anand — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRP.No.151 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.01.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP.No.151 of 2026 and CMP.No.682 of 2026

¶7

C.Aishwarya ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. P.Anand ...Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 3.11.2025 and the petition in IA.No.4/2024 in OP.No. 1723/2023 on the file of II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan ORDER

¶11

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the

¶12

trial court allowing the application filed by the respondent seeking to produce additional documents.

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

CRP.No.151 of 2026

¶16

The respondent/husband filed a divorce petition in HMOP.No.1723 of

¶17

He filed application seeking leave of the court to produce certain additional documents. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was stated that five documents described in the affidavit were not produced at the time of filing of OP and he procured the documents only now after elaborate search. The family court was pleased to allow the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/wife has come before this court.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents

¶19

produced by the respondent are not relevant to the main issue involved in the

¶20

OP. Therefore, the Family Court ought not have allowed the application.

¶21

The respondent filed an application to produce additional documents

¶22

which were not produced along with this pleadings. By impugned order, the trial court allowed the respondent to produce the documents. The relevancy of the document cannot be decided at this stage. When the respondent attempt to mark the additional documents, the petitioner has liberty to object to the marking by raising objections. Even then, the documents can be marked subject to the relevancy and proof and usefulness of the document can be

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

CRP.No.151 of 2026 decided at the time of final disposal. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶26

19.01.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No nr To The II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶27

3/4

¶28

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

CRP.No.151 of 2026

S.SOUNTHAR , J.