Allowed

S.Divya v. P.S.Narayanan

Madras HC10 Aug 2021CRP/1567/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition allowed the petitioner to direct the Salem Family Court to dispose of a divorce petition as early as possible, though no time frame could be fixed. The court also directed the trial judge to explore videoconferencing for the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Family Judge, Salem to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019 as early as possible and to explore videoconferencing for the trial.

S.Divya Vs P.S.Narayanan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.1567 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.08.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

C.R.P. (PD) No.1567 of 2021
S.Divya ... Petitioner /
Respondent
versus
P.S.Narayanan ... Respondent /
Petitioner

¶7

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Family Court, Salem, to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019 at an early date.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.PL.Narayanan O R D E R

¶9

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking direction to the

¶10

learned Family Judge, Salem, to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019 at an

¶11

early date to be fixed by this Court.

¶12

1/4

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶14

C.R.P.(PD).No.1567 of 2021

¶15

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the

¶16

respondent has filed the petition under Section 13(1)(ia & ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce from the petitioner. In fact, the parties had entered Dissolution of Marriage Deed dated 23.12.2018. But some reason or other, there was no reconciliation to file this petition for divorce by mutual consent. However, this document makes it clear that, the parties intended to terminate their marriage. It is not known why the parties have not chosen to file petition for divorce by mutual consent after alleged

¶17

execution of the Dissolution of Marriage Deed dated 23.12.2018.

¶18

3. With regard to the claim that the learned Family Judge, Salem, to be directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that, due to heavy pendency of cases, especially the matters related to marital dispute, no time frame can be fixed. However, considering the reasons stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, materials produced in support of the claim of the divorce, this Court directs the learned Family Judge, Salem, to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019, as early as possible.

¶19

2/4

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

C.R.P.(PD).No.1567 of 2021

¶22

4. Now that, the proceedings are being held through

¶23

videoconferencing, the learned trial Judge, is also directed to explore the possibility of conducting trial through videoconferencing by following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANTHINI

¶24

vs. VIJAYA VENKETESH reported in (2018) 1 SCC 1 and the Madras

¶25

High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020.

¶26

This Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly.
However, there is no order as to costs.
10.08.2021
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
sri
To
The Family Judge, Salem.

¶27

3/4

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶29

C.R.P.(PD).No.1567 of 2021

¶30

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶31

sri

¶32

C.R.P. (PD) No.1567 of 2021
10.08.2021

¶33

4/4

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.Divya v. P.S.Narayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Divya v. P.S.Narayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.M.Vidhyasegar Vs S. Kumararajapandian

Mohanan Vs Adington Premkumar

A.Aadityan Vs B.Sridevi

Hariprashad Vs S.Saraswathi

F.Rajan Babu Vs S.Shoba

Selvaraju Vs Kiruthika