ORDER

Heard R.Jaswanth Ram representing Mr.Sundaravadivel for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.M.Antony Raja Durai for the respondent.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as wife and husband.

3.The wife is the civil revision petitioner. The respondent is the husband.

4.The husband has initiated HMOP.No.1160 of 2018 seeking divorce. The wife has, in turn, filed HMOP.No.98 of 2018, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. There is also another proceeding pending in GWOP.No.373 of 2019, seeking custody of the minor daughter.

5.Pleadings have been completed and the matter has gone for trial. When the matter was listed on 15.07.2025, the wife was not able to appear before the Court, as she was suffering from severe stomach pain caused due to her menstrual cycle. Therefore, the cross- examination was closed. Hence, the wife filed I.A.No.2 of 2025, invoking Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to re-call P.W1 for cross-examination.

6.The learned Family Judge at Madurai, called upon the husband to file a counter. Thereafter, he took up the application for disposal. The husband filed a counter stating that the case had been posted for cross-examination on 08.10.2024, 16.10.2024 and 27.11.2024. He had been cross-examined in part on 18.12.2024 and finally, when it was posted on 15.07.2025, neither the wife nor her counsel were present. Hence, the evidence was closed. The husband denied that his wife was suffering from any illness, which prevented her from being present in Court. He urged that the entire proceedings were sought to be dragged on by the wife. Considering the affidavit and counter, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition vide order dated 13.10.2025. Hence, the revision.

7.I have considered the submissions made on either side. I have gone through the records.

8.A perusal of the paper reveals that the wife has pleaded that she was suffering from severe cramps on account of menstruation. Such problems faced by women is not unknown. The learned Judge should have considered that, if cross-examination on crucial aspects of the case is not conducted, the wife runs the risk of the non covered part of the chief examination would be deemed to have been admitted by her. The wife gains nothing by dragging on the proceedings. She has already initiated the proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife runs the risk of losing the status of a wife of the husband, in case, divorce is granted. When the wife has taken steps for restitution, this Court is of the view that the plea taken by the wife deserves some consideration at the hands of the Family Court. The Court could have allowed the application on terms and could have proceeded with cross-examination on a day-to-day manner. The main divorce petition is of the year 2018 and so is the petition filed by the wife. Considering the reasons given by the wife, the learned Trial Judge could have taken a more liberal view instead of dismissing the petition.

9.Yet, as urged by Mr.M.Antony Raja Durai, the husband has to travel from Ramanathapuram to Madurai for the purpose of deposing in the case. This obviously would require some expenditure. The wife cannot have the luxury of re-opening the evidence, without paying for the same.

10.In the light of the above discussions, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed with the following directions:-

i) The order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai in IA No.2 of 2025 in HMOP No.1160 of 2018 dated 13.10.2025 is set aside on the condition that the wife pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the husband within a period of four weeks from today.

ii) On verification of payment of cost, the learned Judge shall re-call P.W1.

iii) The wife will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine the husband on the day on which the matter is listed and on the subsequent day.

iv) The matter should not be adjourned beyond two hearings fixed by the Court.

v) In case, the cost is not paid, this Civil Revi