Disposed

B.Sangeethkumar v. a.Pongudi

Madras HC14 Feb 2024CRP(MD)/311/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family Court, Karur returned an unnumbered divorce petition on the ground that a prior award required a one-year wait. The High Court set aside the docket order without entering merits, permitting representation and directing judicial-side adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Docket order dated 30.01.2024 set aside; petitioner permitted to represent the unnumbered H.M.O.P.S.R.No.290 of 2024 before the Family Court, Karur, to be decided on merits on its judicial side.

B.Sangeethkumar Vs a.Pongudi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.311 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.311 of 2024

¶7

B.Sangeethkumar

¶8

... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

A.Poongudi ... Respondent/Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order, dated 30.01.2024 and consequently direct the Family Court, Karur, to number the Unnumbered H.M.O.P.S.R.No.290 of 2024 [F.No.OP/40/2024] within stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokulraj

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This civil revision petition has been filed set aside the docketal order, dated 30.01.2024 and consequently direct the Family Court, Karur, to number the Unnumbered H.M.O.P.S.R.No.290 of 2024 [F.No.OP/40/2024] within stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

C.R.P.(MD)No.311 of 2024

¶18

2.The petition filed by the petitioner before the trial Court came to be returned by the Family Court, Karur, stating that already award was passed in H.M.O.P.No.310 of 2023, on 14.10.2023, hence, he has to wait for one year. But, for which the petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner filed the petition seeking divorce not only on the ground of desertion, but on the ground of cruelty also. Therefore, non entertaining the petitioner on the Judicial side is not permissible.

¶19

3.But, entertaining the petition on Administrative side is not

¶20

proper. On that sole ground without entering into the merits of the matter, the docket order, dated 30.01.2024, in Unnumbered H.M.O.P.S.R.No.290 of 2024 [F.No.OP/40/2024] on the file of the Family Court, Karur, is hereby set aside. The petitioner is permitted to represent the above said petition before the trial Court and the same shall be decided by the trial Court on its judicial side on merits. Let the original petition be returned to the petitioner under proper acknowledgment for representation.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P.(MD)No.311 of 2024

¶24

4.With the above said directions, this civil revision petition stands

¶25

disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

14.02.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM

¶27

Note: Issue Order copy on 15.02.2024

¶28

¶29

1.The Judge, Family Court, Karur.

¶30

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

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

¶32

3/4

¶33

C.R.P.(MD)No.311 of 2024

¶34

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

¶35

¶36

C.R.P.(MD)No.311 of 2024

¶37

14.02.2024

¶38

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

¶39

4/4

B.Sangeethkumar v. a.Pongudi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sangeethkumar v. a.Pongudi

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

Backiyanathan Vs S.Jeyalakshmi

M.Premalatha Vs The Managing Director

Vijayalakshmi Vs Annathai @ Annathayammal

Nagarani, Vs Krishnakumar

Maheshkannah, Vs C.Prameela

N.Udhayakumar Vs M.Vijayalakshmi