CRP No. 1958 of 2026

PRAYER

To allow the CRP by setting aside the fair and Decretal Order dated 03.03.2026, passed in IA No. 6 of 2026 in FCOP No. 95 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Namakkal and thus render justice.

CRP No. 1960 of 2026

PRAYER

To allow the CRP by setting aside the fair and Decretal Order dated 03.03.2026, passed in IA No.7 of 2026 in FCOP No. 95 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Namakkal and thus render justice.

CRP No. 1958 of 2026

For Petitioner(s): MR.Senthil S

For Respondent(s): MR.B.Baskar

ORDER

1. These civil Revision petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 03.03.2026 passed in I.A No. 6 & 7 of 2026 in FCOP No. 95 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Namakkal.

2. The petitioner herein filed I.A No. 6 & 7 of 2026 in FCOP No. 95 of 2023, under Section 151 CPC seeking to reopen and recall R.W.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order prove the behaviour of the respondent the petitioner wanted to cross examine R.W.1, for which, he filed an application to reopen and recall D.W.1. But both applications were dismissed by the Trial Court by stating that sufficient opportunity was given to petitioner to cross examine R.W.1 and elaborately cross examined by him. Further the petitioner has not assigned specific reason for reopen and recall evidence of R.W.1 . Besides, in order to fill up lacuna the petitioner filed these applications.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed these Civil Revision Petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the petition to dissolve marriage on the ground of mental cruelty and Psychopathic conduct of the respondent. The respondent contested the case

5. The petitioner examined the respondent as R.W.1 after closing the evidence of R.W.1 the petitioner filed application to reopen the case in order to cross examine one Giridhar as witness who has witnessed the conduct of the respondent on one occasion to prove the same the petitioner want to examine the said Giridhar. But on earlier occasion he went abroad now he came down to India. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present applications which is necessary to prove his case. There is no intention to drag on the proceedings. Hence, he prays to allow these petitions.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the divorce petition the petitioner has not mentioned about the name of the witness Giridhar. Now, in order to fill up lacuna the petitioner filed these applications after cross examination of R.W.1. Now, he wants to examine new witness without any specific pleadings. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the adduce the evidence and the same was rightly appreciated by the Trial court which needs no interference.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Considering the fact of the case the petitioner has filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and psychopathic behaivour. The petitioner counsel contend that the petitioner has stated about the behaviour of the respondent is detailed paragraph No. 4 of the original petition, which states that on one occasion the respondent behaved rudely and assaulted the child, when questioned by the petitioner the respondent had took a knife and caused an injury on her left palm voluntarily while in a psychopathic state. The contention of the petitioner is that said incident was witnessed by one Giridhar. Admittedly, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent there is no specific pleading about that individual and also witness on that day. However, the behaviour of the respondent was mentioned in the petition in order to prove the same the petitioner wanted to examine that person as such is acceptable one. More fully the petitioner sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and Psychopathic conduct of the respondent. Therefore, the opportunity has to be giv