Disposed

Mayavi v. Mazhalai Mari

Madras HC5 Oct 2017CRP/3690/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Petition under Article 226 (noted as 227 in text), the Madras High Court directed the Subordinate Court to expeditiously dispose of a pending divorce case where the petitioner had previously been dismissed for default but subsequently had the order restored.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Subordinate Court to dispose of HMOP No.40 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible.

Mayavi Vs Mazhalai Mari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.10.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP.PD.No.3690 of 2017

¶7

Mayavi ... Petitioner
Vs.
Mazhalai Mari ... Respondent
Prayer :
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

¶8

Constitution of India, to expedite the proceedings in HMOP.No.40 of 2013 pending on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram within a time frame.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.G.Thiyagu

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court for limited scope to consider to dispose of the petition

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

in HMOP.No.40 of 2013 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed a petition in HMOP.No.40 of 2013 for divorce and the said OP was posted on 16.04.2014. On the day, the petitioner did not appear before the court. Consequentially, the said OP was dismissed for default. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for restoring the said OP and the same was numbered as IA.No.71 of 2014 and the same was allowed on 16.02.2017 and the aforesaid OP was restored. Now the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶16

By considering the facts stated in the affidavit and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the delay is only on the part of the petitioner, subsequently the said OP was restored on filing an application. But the said OP is pending before the Sub Court, Chidambaram. It is also represented that so far counter affidavit has not been filed by the respondent.

¶17

In the above said circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the court below to dispose of the HMOP No.40 of 2013 as

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

expeditiously as possible.

¶21

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with above

¶22

directions. No costs.

¶23

05.10.2017
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.

¶27

lok

¶28

To
The Sub Judge,
The Subordinate Court,
Chidambaram
CRP.PD.No.3690 of 2017

¶29

05.10.2017

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

Mayavi v. Mazhalai Mari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayavi v. Mazhalai Mari

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

R. Madhan Chand Vs R. Premchand

A.Sarangan Vs Crb Welfare Association

S.Subramanian Vs Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan

Jayanthi Vs R.Kasthuri

Mary Infanta Sharmila Fernando Vs N.Jeevanandham

K.Selvi Vs Manivannan v