M.Vinoth Kumar v. P.Nandhini

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and CMP.No.23334 of 2025 M.Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner / Petitioner / Petitioner

Versus

P.Nandhini ... Respondent / Respondent / Respondent Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to setaside the order dated 10.07.2025 made in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.3178 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Principal Family Court at Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Saravanan

O R D E R

Unsuccessful husband has preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.

1/5

2. The revision petitioner / husband filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.3178 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The evidence on both sides was completed, and the case was posted for arguments on 07.02.2025. At this stage, the husband filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.3178 of 2022 under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to reopen the evidence on the side of the petitioner / husband, which had been closed on 28.08.2024. Upon hearing either side, the Court below, vide order dated 10.07.2025, dismissed the application on the ground that the respondent / wife had never admitted the complaint lodged by the petitioner's mother. Mere registration of a Community Service Register (CSR) is not sufficient to prove the same and that the petitioner / husband was attempting to fill up the lacuna in his case. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the Community Service Register (CSR) complaints are information reports given to the police and that the same are very much necessary to prove the case of the revision petitioner / husband. The learned 2/5

counsel further submitted that if the case is not reopened and the said CSR documents are not received as additional evidence, it would cause prejudice to the revision petitioner / husband. The learned counsel also submits that the CSR came to be issued subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition.

4. It is seen from the records that the revision petitioner / husband filed the petition in O.P.No.3178 of 2022 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. After completion of evidence on both sides, the case was posted for arguments on 07.02.2025. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application to reopen the evidence. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.4 of 2025 was that, during the cross-examination of the respondent, she admitted the existence of a police complaint, and hence the petitioner sought to mark the CSR on his side.

5. Considering the stage of the case and the nature of the dispute pending between the parties, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.3178 of 2022 dated 10.07.2025, on the file of II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai. 3/5

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 25.09.2025 av Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No To The learned II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai. 4/5

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

av and CMP.No.23334 of 2025 25.09.2025 5/5