Madras High Court
Mrs.N.Poornima vs S.Ganapathy @ Ashok on 7 October, 2025
C.R.P.No.4709 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.R.P.No.4709 of 2025
and
C.M.P.Nos.23803 and 23805 of 2025
Mrs.N.Poornima ... Petitioner
Versus
S.Ganapathy @ Ashok ... Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in
H.M.O.P No.1116 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Judge, Family Court,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rathnasabapathy
For Respondent : Mr.M.Gowtham
ORDER
The unsuccessful wife has preferred the present revision petition
against the order dated 01.08.2025 in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.1116
of 2023 passed by the III Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am )
2. The above H.M.O.P.No.1116 of 2023 was filed by the
respondent/husband S.Ganapathy @ Ashok for declaring the marriage
between him and the revision petitioner as null and void. After completion of
evidence of respondent / husband, the case was posted for further evidence of
revision petitioner/wife. At this stage, the revision petitioner/wife has filed an
application in I.A.No.6 of 2025 under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 to issue subpoena to one G.Sankaralingam, the father of the
respondent/husband and one G.Revathi to adduce evidence. Upon hearing the
parties, the Court below vide order dated 01.08.2025 dismissed the
application on the ground that nobody can be compelled to adduce evidence
and that apart, the petitioner has not furnished the particulars of said Revathi.
Aggrieved over the said order, the wife has preferred the present civil revision
petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that the Court below failed to consider the contention of the revision
petitioner that G.Sankaralingam, the father of the respondent/husband is a
Police Official (Special Sub-Inspector of Police) and he along with his family
members is forcing the petitioner to sell the property. Though the
respondent/husband stated that the said Sankaralingam met with an accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am )
in the year 2018, no medical records were produced before the Court to prove
the same and therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the
Court below. The learned counsel would further submit that in order to prove
the case of the revision petitioner/wife, it is just and necessary to examine the
father of the respondent and Revathi. To strengthen his contention, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chowdamma (D) by LR and another Vs.
Venkatappa (D) by LRs and another reported in 2025 INSC 1038.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband
would submit that case is now posted for argument and only in order to
protract the proceedings, the above application came to be filed and there is
no necessity to examine the father of the respondent/husband and one Revathi
and the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on both sides
and also perused the materials available on record.
6. It is the admitted case of the parties that the marriage between the
petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 10.09.2021 and the revision
petitioner and the respondent continued their marital life till 15.09.2021.
According to the revision petitioner, the respondent's father G.Sankaralingam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am )
who is working as a Special Sub-Inspector of Police and his respondent's
family members were forcing the revision petitioner to sell the revision
petitioner's mother's property and they were disappointed due to the refusal to
sell the property which led to failing of false complaint against the revision
petitioner. Therefore, only in order to establish certain facts, the revision
petitioner filed the above interlocutory application to summon Sankaralingam
and Revathi to adduce evidence.
7. It is seen from the records that the original petition was filed for
declaring the marriage as null and void. On behalf of the
respondent/husband, he himself was examined as PW1 and certain documents
were marked. On completion of evidence on the side of the
respondent/husband, the case was posted for revision petitioner/wife's side
evidence. On behalf of the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner herself
was examined as RW1, grandmother of revision petitioner was examined as
RW2, a Gynecologist was examined as RW3 and a Radiology Technician was
examined as RW4 and the case is now posted for adducing further evidence
on the side of the revision petitioner. It is at this stage that the revision
petitioner has come forward with I.A.No.6 of 2025 to issue subponea to
G.Sankaralingam and one Revathi. According to the revision petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am )
respondent's father threatened the petitioner's family to sell the property and
purchase the property in the name of the respondent/husband. According to
the revision petitioner, the said Revathi accompanied the respondent/husband
to beauty parlor at the time of marriage. Upon hearing the parties and
considering the materials before it, the Court below found that there is no
necessity to examine the revision petitioner's father-in-law as a witness on her
side and it is also observed that nobody can be compelled to adduce evidence.
8. Considering the nature of dispute between the parties and stage of
the case, this Court is of the view that the Court below has not committed any
error in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner. There is no
merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am )
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
07.10.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
gpa
To
III Additional Judge,
Family Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am )
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gpa
07.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am )
