Judgment · High Court

CRP.No.27 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 08-01-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARCRP No. 27 of 2026 andCMP No.47 of 2026J.Vedanarayanan,S/o.Jayaraman, Plot No.344, 100, 9th Street, Sri Kamakoti Nagar, Pallikaranai, Chennai -600 100. Petitioner(s)VsR.Lavanya,D/o.Rajendran, Plot No.8-B, Door No.5/217, Senthamil Nagar Extension, Sithalapakkam, Chennai -126.Respondent(s)PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.74 of 2023 dated 12.09.2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Alandur, and thereby allow this Revision throughout cost. For Petitioner(s):Mr. M/s.K.Jayaraman1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.27 of 2026ORDERThis Civil Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the court below, allowing the application filed by the respondent/wife seeking insertion of paragraph No.7A in the main OP, containing averments regarding strained relationship between her and the petitioner herein/husband.2.

The respondent herein filed HMOP No.74 of 2023 against the petitioner seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Pending main OP, the respondent filed the instant amendment application seeking to insert paragraph No.7A in the main OP, which contains certain facts relating to the strained relationship between her and the petitioner. In the affidavit in support of the amendment application, it was stated by the respondent that certain material facts regarding strained relationship were not mentioned in the original OP due to inadvertance and therefore, the instant application has been filed seeking to insert paragraph No.7A in the main OP. The said application was allowed by the court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband has come before this court.2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.27 of 20263. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the original OP filed by the respondent, no allegation was made by the respondent regarding cruelty and hence, by way amendment she cannot be permitted to include some new facts.

In such circumstances, the Trial court ought not have allowed the application.4. A perusal of Paragraph No.7A shows that it contains only allegations relating to the strained relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. While considering the main OP for divorce filed by the respondent, the court can take into account the strained relationship between the parties and arrive at a conclusion with regard to the reliefs sought for in the main OP. It is not disputed that the main OP is at the stage of enquiry and the trial has not yet commenced and therefore, the amendment sought for is only a pre-trial amendment. Even after allowing amendment, the petitioner is entitled to file an additional counter refuting the allegations contained in the amended paragraph. Further, allowing of such amendment would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court.3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.27 of 20265.