Valli, v. Kumaresan,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 704 of 2026 and CMP No.3712 of 2026 Valli, W/o. Kumaresan, Residing at FCI Godown near, Selathampatty Village, Sivathapuram Route, Andipatty P.O., Salem West Taluk, Salem District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Kumaresan, S/o.Nainamalai, D.No.2/62A, Pachanna Taluk, Vedukathampatti, Thirumalagiri, Salem -636 307.

2. Iyyamaal, D/o.Palanisamy, Residing at D.No.2/62A, Pachanna Taluk, Vedukathampatti, Thirumalagiri P.O., Salem -636 307.

3. Minor Logeswaran, Natural Guardian Mother Iyyamaal, Residing at D.No.2/62A, Pachanna Taluk, Vedukathampatti, Thirumalagiri P.O., Salem -636 307.

4. The Head Master, Government Primary School, Vedukathampatty, Thirumalaigiri P.O., Salem District -636 307.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to o set aside the Order passed in IA.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.27 of 2024 vide Order dated 29.07.2025 by the Family Court, Salem, by allowing this CRP. For Petitioner(s):

Ms. Shamyuktha for Mr.V.I.Prashanth

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/first defendant seeking impleadment of respondents 2 to 4 herein as defendants 4 to 6 in the suit.

2. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2024 seeking declaration that the marriage between him and the petitioner that had taken place on 20.05.1999 was null avoid. According to the first respondent, at the time of marriage, the petitioner had a spouse living and suppressing the said fact, she contracted the marriage with the first respondent.

3. The petitioner herein/first defendant filed the instant application seeking impleadment of respondents 2 to 4 herein on the ground that her husband/first respondent herein is living with the 2nd respondent and a child, the 3rd respondent herein was born to them. It is further stated that the third respondent herein is studying in the school of the 4th respondent and the 4th

respondent failed to give the details of the 3rd respondent to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner wants to implead them as party/ defendants in the suit.

4. The main controversy to be decided in the suit is whether the petitioner had a spouse living at the time of marriage with the first respondent or not. To decide the said issue, the presence of respondents 2 to 4 herein is not all necessary. It is not the case, where the petitioner/wife seeks divorce from the first respondent on certain disputes, whereas, the first respondent/husband had filed the suit seeking declaration that the marriage solemnised on 20.05.1999 between him and the petitioner was null and void. In such circumstances, the presence of respondents 2 to 4 herein is not at all necessary. Therefore, I do not find anything to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.

5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MST To The Family Court, Salem.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

MST 16-02-2026