Allowed

S.Anandavalli v. M.Balachandran

Madras HC26 Mar 2018CRP(MD)/660/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 seeking direction to the Family Court, Madurai, to dispose of the pending divorce petition (HMOP No.982 of 2015) within three months after the trial court repeatedly adjourned it without valid reasons.

What did the court decide?

The Family Court, Madurai is directed to dispose of the petition in HMOP.No.982 of 2015 on merits within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

S.Anandavalli Vs M.Balachandran — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.03.2018 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶4

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.660 of 2018

¶5

S.Anandavalli .. Petitioner/ Petitioner Vs. M.Balachandran ..Respondent / Respondent

¶6

..Respondent / Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai to dispose of the HMOP. No.982 of 2015, within a time limit fixed by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Mathi.Murugan ----

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai to dispose of the HMOP. No.982 of 2015, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶11

The petitioner would submit that the

¶12

petitioner/petitioner has filed a petition in HMOP.No.982 of 2015 seeking divorce. After receiving the notice, the respondent was appeared and filed his counter and thereafter, the respondent has not shown any interest to contest the divorce petition. Though the petition has been filed in the year 2015, the same is still pending without any progress.

¶13

The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the respondent is prolonging the case and the matter is pending right from the year 2015 and the same is being adjourned by the trial Court, periodically and therefore, the petitioner has come up with this civil revision petition for the aforesaid prayer.

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶15

Since the case is for a limited relief of early disposal, no notice is necessary to the respondents.

¶16

A perusal of the 'B' Diary extract would go to show that as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case has been adjourned on several occasions under the caption 'last chance' without any valid reason. Therefore, this Court, without going into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the merits of the allegation raised by the revision petitioner, is inclined to direct the Court below to dispose of the petition in

¶17

¶18

HMOP.No.982 of 2015, within a stipulated period.

¶19

In view of the above, the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai, is directed to dispose of the petition in HMOP.No.982 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶21

Sd/ Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

The Judge, Family Court, Madurai.

¶25

+1cc to M/S.MATHIMURUGAN,Advocate, SR.No. 57757

¶26

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.660 of 2018

¶27

26.03.2018

¶28

¶29

KK/SV MMS/05.04.2018/SAR-1/2P-3C

¶30

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

S.Anandavalli v. M.Balachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anandavalli v. M.Balachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Rani Vs v. Durai

Anthony Arun Raja Vs M.C. Anitha

Santhnam, Vs Seventhan

S. Ambuga Vs S.Veluchamy(Died),v. Alagammal

R.T. Seetharaman Vs S. Sivakumar

Dharmapandian Vs the Christ Church (Csi)