Madras High CourtCRP/3432/2025dismissed

B.Vigneshkumar, v. S.Sneha,

2025-08-05Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-08-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR CRP No. 3432 of 2025 & CMP.No.18724 of 2025

1. B.Vigneshkumar, Rep. By his Power Agent Balasundar, S/o.Balasundar, Residing at Door No.4A, Sai Soundarrajan Apartment, Vetri Nagar, Kavundampalayam, Coimbatore-641 030.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. S.Sneha, D/o.Sundarrajan, PRA-29, Jeevan Nagar, Pottakuzhi, Pattom (Post), Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala-695 004.

Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.3/2024 in I.A.No.2/2023 in HMOP.No.636/2022 dated 04-02-2025 on the file of the Learned Additional Principal Family Judge, Coimbatore

For Petitioner(s):

T. Elumalai

ORDER

Challenge has been made to the Order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to issue summons to the witnesses to adduce evidence in the maintenance application, in the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. The main Original Petition has been filed by the first wife of the petitioner seeking maintenance. In the said Petition, the petitioner has taken out an application seeking to summon the witnesses and produce documents stating that the respondent is leading adulterous life and to prove adultery, he wants to examine the witnesses. The trial Court taking note of the fact that the petitioner has filed the application to examine the Manager from the Madurai Hotel and he has not sought examination of the Manager or authorised person from the hotel Goyal Residency, dismissed the petition. This main Original Petition has been filed only for maintenance. What is relevant to decide in the application for

maintenance is whether the wife is having independent income and she can sustain her livelihood, whether the petitioner has income to maintain his wife. Therefore, all other allegations with regard to the character of the parties, in view of this Court is not at all required to decide in the maintenance case. If at all any divorce application is pending and if the petitioner wants to establish his stand, he can summon witness as per law. Hence, I do not find any merits in this petition.

3. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 05-08-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes vrc To The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

05-08-2025