Partly allowed

S.Nisha v. M.Srirangan@Rangan

Madras HC14 Mar 2019CRL OP/726/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a trial order directing parties to produce evidence regarding the maintainability of a pending maintenance case. It directed the lower court to complete the trial within three months and decide interim maintenance petitions within four weeks on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing evidence for maintainability was set aside; trial to be completed within three months.

S.Nisha Vs M.Srirangan@Rangan — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.03.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.726 of 2019 and

¶2

Crl.M.P.No.455 of 2019

¶3

S.Nisha

¶4

S.Sanjitha @ Sajitha (Minor) Rep.by her mother S.Nisha ... Petitioners

¶5

Vs. M.Srirangan @ Rangan ... Respondent

¶6

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the docket order dated 25.10.2018 passed in the pending M.C.No.455 of 2015 before the V Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.P.T.Rakesh For Respondent : Mr.A.L.Ramamoorthy ORDER

¶8

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the docket order dated 25.10.2018, passed in the pending M.C.No.455 of 2015 before the V Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶9

It is seen that a Maintenance case has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2015 and the learned V Additional Family Court, Chennai, have also taken the petition on file and numbered as M.C.No.455 of 2015. After a period of three years, the Trial Court has passed an order dated 25.10.2018, which is extracted hereunder:-

¶10

“On verification of the counter filed by the respondent, it is found that the respondent pleaded that the earlier marriage of the 1^st petitioner with Mr.Sakthivel is subsisting. Hence to decide the issue of maintainability of this M.C., oral and documentary evidence is necessary. Hence both parties are directed to produce oral and documentary evidence on the issue of the maintainability of the M.C. c/o.13.11.2018.”

¶11

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

¶12

It is very unfortunate to state here that once the matter has been taken on file, no question of posting the matter for Maintainability. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.

¶13

In view of the above, the Trial Court is directed to complete the entire trial proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and if any petition is filed for Interim Maintenance, it has to be decided on merits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity to both the parties and after recording evidence, if necessary.

¶14

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vv2/raja
To
The V Additional Judge, Family Court,
Chennai.
+1 cc to Mr.P.T.Rakesh, Advocate Sr.No.24072

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.726 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.455 of 2019 NMI(CO) CSL/10.04.2019

¶17

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

S.Nisha v. M.Srirangan@Rangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nisha v. M.Srirangan@Rangan

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

Kabadi Venkusa Hari Vs the Asst Collector of Customs

M.Jai Shankar Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Angulakshmi Vs M/S.N.S.Rathnam and Sons Rep

M.Krishnamurthy Vs K.Suguna

Axiz Bank Limited, Rep. by Its Vs Ms. Shalini D.Shetty

Nadira Nilopher Vs Fahmida Kouser