Allowed

Sri Karthik Thirumal Girija v. M. Vandhana

Madras HC21 Mar 2025CMA/629/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband appealed against a one-line Family Court order allowing the wife's application to reject his divorce petition. The High Court held a cryptic order without reasons is not judicial, set it aside, restored the divorce petition and directed decision on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; divorce petition restored; trial court to decide on merits within three months; no costs; connected CMP closed.

Sri Karthik Thirumal Girija Vs M. Vandhana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.M.A.No.629 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

C.M.A.No.629 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.4952 of 2025

¶7

Sri Karthik Thirumal Girija

... Appellant

-Vs-

Vandhana

... Respondent

PRAYER : Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act r/w.Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, against the fair decretal order dated 24.04.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.P.No.991 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.M.Velmurugam for Mr.M.Venkatesh For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

C.M.A.No.629 of 2025

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

¶19

The appellant who is the husband filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.991 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Principal Family Court, at Chennai. In order to reject that petition, an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 of 2023 was filed by the respondent / wife. That IA was allowed in one line order, by the order of the Court below dated 24.04.2024.

¶20

The one line order reads thus "the rejection of petition is allowed by this Court".

¶21

We wonder to see this order passed by the Court exercising its judicial power. If at all any petition to reject the petition seeking for divorce is filed, that petition if at all to be decided, it should have been decided on merits. The reasoning must have been stated. Without any reasoning in a single line, if such petitions are allowed, that kind of cryptic order cannot be said to be a judicial order and therefore, for that reason alone, the order is liable to be set aside, accordingly the order impugned dated 24.04.2024 is set aside. As a result of which, H.M.O.P.No.991 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Principal Family

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

C.M.A.No.629 of 2025

¶25

Court, at Chennai is get restored. The Court below is directed to take up H.M.O.P.No.991 of 2023 and decide the same on merits and in accordance with

¶26

law by giving priority within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

Hereafter, the Judicial Officer must be careful in passing the orders

¶28

like this as without any reasons, such kind of order ought not to have been passed.

¶29

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. However,

¶30

there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

(R.S.K., J.) (A.D.M.C., J.) 21.03.2025

¶32

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No vji

¶33

¶34

The learned II Additional Principal Judge, Chennai.

¶35

The Section Officer, V.R. Section,

¶36

3/5

¶37

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

C.M.A.No.629 of 2025

High Court, Chennai.

4/5

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

¶42

C.M.A.No.629 of 2025

¶43

R.SURESH KUMAR, J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶44

vji

¶45

C.M.A.No.629 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.4952 of 2025

¶46

21.03.2025

¶47

5/5

¶48

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

Sri Karthik Thirumal Girija v. M. Vandhana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Karthik Thirumal Girija v. M. Vandhana

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

F. Shakila Vs M/s. Rci Container Services Pvt. Ltd.

P.Akkiniraj @ Jebaraj Vs v.Sivasankari @ Jenifer

S..Girish Kumar Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

Sravani Chitra Vs S.Gopalakrishnan

Ziyavudeen Vs Fathima Begum

Karthik Thirumal Girija Vs M. Vandhana