K.v.Saravanan v. Pavithra Srinivasan
Case brief
What is this about?
This order dismisses two Civil Revision Petitions challenging an Additional Family Court order in a divorce suit which allowed condonation of delay. Relying on N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, the High Court held errors were not made. It directed that any objection by the petitioner regarding the reasons for condonation or remarriage must be raised before the trial court.
What did the court decide?
The Civil Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed without costs.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP(NPD).Nos.827 & 828 of 2018
K.V.Saravanan .. Petitioner
in both CRP's
Vs
Pavithra Srinivasan .. Respondent
in both CRP's
COMMON PRAYER
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code against the order dated 17.11.2017 in IA.No.911 of 2017
and the order dated 11.12.2017 in IA.No.3142 of 2017 in IA.No.911 of
2017, in OP.No.2680 of 2014 passed by the learned V Additional Family
Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Manimaran in both CRP's COMMON O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the family court's order condoning delay and setting aside an ex parte order based on the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy.
Whether the revision petitioner's objections regarding the sufficiency of reasons for condoning the 213-day delay and remarriage can be considered at this stage.
Whether the impugned orders are erroneous or illegal justifying civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K.V. Saravanan
- respondent
Pavithra Srinivasan
Coram
D. KRISSNAKUMAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court