Allowed

A.T.Jain Sharely v. R.Evalin Latha

Madras HC9 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/783/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a civil revision petition under Article 227 to direct the Principal District Judge, Nagercoil, to dispose of pending divorce and interim maintenance applications within specified timelines, addressing allegations of mechanical adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal District Judge, Nagercoil, to dispose of I.A.267 of 2012 within a month and the main I.D.O.P.303 of 2012 within two months.

A.T.Jain Sharely Vs R.Evalin Latha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 09.04.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.783 of 2014 (PD)

¶7

A.T.Jain Sharely

¶8

.. Petitioner/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

R.Evalin Latha .. Respondent/Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Principal District and Sessions Court, Nagercoil to dispose the I.D.O.P.No.303 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Nagercoil as expeditiously as possible preferably within a time stipulated, by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Seeking a direction to the learned Principal District Judge, Nagercoil, to dispose of I.D.O.P.No.303 of 2012, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court, this revision petition is filed by this petitioner after invoking the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution.

¶15

This revision has been filed by the petitioner invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petitioner is the petitioner in I.D.O.P.No.303 of 2012, whereas the respondent is the respondent therein.

¶16

It is manifested from the records that the revision petitioner has filed the said I.D.O.P.No.303 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Nagercoil, as against the respondent, under Section 10(1) (x) of the Divorce Act, seeking a decree for divorce by nullifying the marriage solemnized on 07.06.2004 between the revision petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife. The respondent herein has been contesting the above petition by filing counter. While the above I.D.O.P.No.303 of 2012 is pending, the respondent/wife has also taken out an another application in I.A.267 of 2012, claiming the relief of interim maintenance and that application was also contested by the revision petitioner/husband and the same is also pending before the same Court.

¶17

Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband has submitted that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagercoil had been mechanically adjourning the proceedings without adverting to the fact that the respondent/wife already had filed her counter statement as early as on 29.11.2012 and as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such, the matter had been protracted almost for the past two years. It is also submitted that the learned Principal District Judge has completely

¶18

¶19

overlooked the very conduct of the respondent/wife in dragging the matter from the year 2012, merely harping on the interim application with a clear intention to harass the revision petitioner/husband. He has also adverted to that the petition in I.D.O.P.No.303 of 2012 was filed as early as in 2012. Admittedly, the respondent/wife knew the financial capacity of the revision petitioner/husband and despite the said fact, she has filed an application claiming interim maintenance, for which also, suitable counter was filed by the revision petitioner/husband. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is seeking the relief as stated above.

¶20

5.This Court has considered the submissions made by Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and perused the grounds of revision petition. It may be expedient to issue a direction as requested by the petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the Principal District Judge, Nagercoil is directed to dispose of the interlocutory application in I.A.No.267 of 2012 within a month's time from today and the main I.D.O.P.No.303 of 2012 shall be disposed of within two months thereafter, without loss of further time. There is no order as to costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

¶25

1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagercoil.

¶26

2.Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶27

+1cc to Mr. M.P.Senthil, Advocate in sr NO.21757

¶28

C.R.P(MD)No.783 of 2014(PD) 09.04.2014

¶29

rg.07.05.2014 2p/4c

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.T.Jain Sharely v. R.Evalin Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.T.Jain Sharely v. R.Evalin Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subbaraj, Vs Shanthi

Muthulakshmi Vs the Special Tahsildar

Jaya Christhu Rani, Vs Govindaraj

R.Prakash, Vs Sri Lakshmi Narashima Swamy

C.Selvakumar, Vs Flowrence Selvi

A. Suganthi Vs v. Srisuresh