IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and CMP.No.19196 of 2025 M.Tamizharasan ... Petitioner vs.

1.D.Sarah Hepzibah

2.S.Mohan

3.Dhairiyalakshmi

4.Visalakshmi ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.25918 of 2024 in DVC.No.13 of 2022, dated 29.04.2025 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Hari For Respondents :Mr.T.Surendran for R1 Notice returned for R2 and R3

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet receiving the additional documents filed by the respondent namely the Pendrive containing Audio and Video recordings.

2. The respondent herein filed a Domestic Violence Complaint against the petitioner and others in DVC.No.13 of 2023 seeking direction to the respondent therein to pay compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence act and also to pay back the marriage expenses.

3. During the enquiry of the said complaint, the respondent filed the instant application seeking production of pendrive, containing Audio and Video recordings. The pendrive was produced along with affidavit sworn by the respondent under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. The said application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the contents of the pendrive are irrelevant and the accuracy of the verbal representations available therein cannot be taken into consideration without expert certified transcripts.

4. The learned Magistrate received the document subject to the objections made by the petitioner after recording that the objections raised by the petitioner could not be decided at the time of enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the contents of the pendrive produced by the respondent is disputed by the petitioner and veracity of the contents cannot be taken into consideration without expert-certified transcripts.

6. The Judicial Magistrate has considered the objection raised by the petitioner and the pendrive produced by the respondent was received only subject to relevancy. It is always open to the petitioner to raise all the objections regarding the veracity of the contents available in the pendrive at the time of final disposal.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

10.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ub S.SOUNTHAR, J.

ub To The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

10.12.2025