C.R.P(MD)No.1896 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.R.P.(MD)No.1896 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.9118 of 2026 Lenin Paul Singh .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Jenisha Sharon Sha 2.G.Jebin .. Respondents PRAYER: civil revision petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and Decreetal order dated 30.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in I.D.O.P.NO.266 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.V.George Raja ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of the second respondent. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1896 of 2026 2. The petitioner/husband filed I.D.O.P. seeking restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, the first respondent. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the main O.P. is posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking impleadment of the second respondent on the ground that the first respondent was having illicit intimacy with him. The said application was dismissed by the Family Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. The prayer in the main O.P. filed by the petitioner is only for restitution of conjugal rights. When the petitioner seeks restitution of conjugal rights, there is absolutely no necessity to implead the alleged paramour as a party to the proceedings. Though the petitioner has stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that he intends to amend the prayer in the main O.P. by seeking divorce on the ground of adultery, the fact remains that, till date, no such amendment petition has been filed. As on today, the relief sought for in the main O.P. is only restitution of conjugal rights. 4. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no necessity to implead the alleged paramour as a party merely based on the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1896 of 2026 allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit. The Family Court rightly came to the conclusion that the second respondent is not a necessary party having regard to the relief sought for in the main O.P., and dismissed the application. I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.07.2026 Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No skn To 1. Family Court, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1896 of 2026 S.SOUNTHAR, J. skn C.R.P.(MD)No.1896 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.9118 of 2026 20.07.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis