1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1124 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 B.Selvakumari ..Petitioner/Respondent -vs- B.Thiruppathi Ganesh ..Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree dated 11.04.2011 passed in I.A.No.59 of 2011 in H.M.O.P.No.189 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondent : Mr.S.Kadarkarai O R D E R The petitioner/wife has challenged the order passed in the application filed by her to delete Ex.B-3, C.D. from the evidence of respondent/husband 2.Heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned counsel for the respondent. 3.The original petition was filed for divorce by the respondent against the petitioner herein/wife. During the trial, the respondent/husband marked C.D. containing the alleged conversation between the petitioner and the respondent as Ex.P-3. The said C.D. is sought to be deleted, on the ground that the said C.D. was not pleaded in the main petition. However, the trial Court dismissed the said petition stating that at the time of marking as Ex.P-3 no objection was raised and only after one week the objection was raised by way of filing of an application. 4.Mr.M.Thirunavukarasu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court did not take into consideration that the original cellphone was not produced and it was not raised in the main petition and it was raised only in the reply statement. On the other hand, Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner kept quite when the C.D was marked and in fact, the said C.D. was raised by way of pleading in the reply statement. 5.No doubt, the petitioner kept quite without making objection. However, in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit the respondent submitted that he was ready to produce the original cellphone which allegedly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 recorded conversation between the petitioner and the respondent. 6.In view of that, the order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded so as to enable the parties to adduce the evidence with regard to the C.D. Ex.P.3. The trial Court is directed to pass afresh the regarding the admissibility or relevancy, Ex.P-3. Since, in view of the admission made by the respondent/husband in paragraph 5 that he is ready to produce original cellphone. On such production of original cellphone, there may not be any prohibition for the trial Court to receive the C.D. as Ex.P.3. With regard to the proof and relevancy, the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence and to take appropriate steps. 7.Mr.M.Thirunavukarasu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he should be given opportunity to refer the original cellphone and Ex.P.3 C.D., voice expert so as to confirm whether it is the voice of the petitioner/wife. If the parties are allowed to take another application for the aforesaid prayer, it will only prolong the matter and it will give raise to another round of litigation. Considering the young age of the parties, this Court comprehensively give following directions; The trial Court is directed to send original cellphone, which is to be produced by the respondent/husband along with Ex.P.3 C.D. and the voice to be recorded by petitioner/wife to a voice expert without even an application from the parties. However, the parties are directed to file joint memo to that effect before the trial Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing of memo, the trial Court is directed to refer the matter to the voice expert within two weeks thereafter. After receipt of the expert opinion, the trial Court is directed to adjudicate the matter within three months thereafter. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur. +1cc to Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, Advocate, SR.No.20265 +1cc to Mr.S.Kadarkarai, Advocate, SR.No.20359 skn GH : 06.07.2011 : 2p/4c C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1124 of 2011 27.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/