Disposed¶27

R.Ganapathi Janaki v. K.Ramesh

Madras HC9 Oct 2025CRP/4787/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, 09.10.2025, M. Jothiraman J. CRP.No.4787 of 2025 (Article 227). Wife challenged order allowing husband's I.A.No.1 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.698 of 2022 (Sub Court, Alandur) setting aside exparte order dated 27.06.2024 subject to Rs.1000/- payment; contention of 180-day delay without separate condonation petition rejected; no interference; direction for four-month disposal of decade-pending matrimonial case; CMP.No.24201 of 2025 closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024; direction to the Subordinate Judge, Alandur to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.698 of 2022 preferably within four months; connected CMP.No.24201 of 2025 closed; no costs. ¶27

R.Ganapathi Janaki Vs K.Ramesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 13.08.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 (by which the exparte order dated 27.06.2024 was set aside despite an alleged 180-day delay and without a separate petition to condone delay) deserved interference.

¶20

Court's answer

This Court held that the Court below had rightly provided the respondent/husband an opportunity to contest the divorce petition on merits.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

There is no reason to interfere with the order dated 13.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.698 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Alandur.

¶22

Key takeaways

Considering that H.M.O.P.No.698 of 2022 is pending for more than 10 years, the learned Subordinate Judge, Alandur is directed to dispose of the said H.M.O.P. preferably within a period of four months from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the wife (revision petitioner) against the docket order dated 13.08.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.698 of 2022 (Sub Court, Alandur), whereby the husband's application to set aside the exparte order dated 27.06.2024 was allowed on condition of payment of Rs.1,000/- to the wife. Counsel for the wife contended there was a 180-day delay in filing the application without a separate condonation petition. Held: the Court below rightly gave the husband an opportunity to contest the case on merits; no reason to interfere with the order. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Subordinate Judge, Alandur to dispose of the H.M.O.P., pending for more than 10 years, preferably within four months. Connected CMP closed; no costs.

¶1

CRP.No.4787 of 2025 and CMP.No.24201 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

CRP.No.4787 of 2025 and CMP.No.24201 of 2025

¶7

R.Ganapathi Janaki ... Petitioner/ Respondent / Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

K.Ramesh

¶10

... Respondent / Petitioner / Respondent

¶11

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket Order in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in HMOP No.698 of 2022 dated 13.08.2025 pending on the file of the Sub Judge, Alandur.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.S.A.Syed Haroon

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Unsuccessful wife has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

The revision petitioner / wife filed a petition for divorce in

¶16

H.M.O.P.No.698 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Alandur, wherein, the respondent / husband was set exparte on 27.06.2024. Thereafter, the 1/4

¶17

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

¶18

CRP.No.4787 of 2025 and CMP.No.24201 of 2025

¶19

respondent / husband filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.698 of 2024 to set aside the exparte order dated 27.06.2024. Upon hearing either side, the Court below vide order dated 13.08.2025, allowed the petition on condition that the respondent / husband should pay a sum of Rs.1000/-to the revision petitioner / wife. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner / wife has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that there was a delay of 180 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order, without filing s separate petition to condone the delay. The respondent / husband directly filed the petition to set aside the exparte order, which, according to the petitioner, is unsustainable in law.

¶21

It is seen from the records that the Court below found that an opportunity may be given to the respondent / husband to contest the case on merits and accordingly allowed the petition on payment of Rs.1,000/-. In order to decide the real controversy between the parties, an opportunity was rightly provide to the husband to contest the case on merits.

¶22

In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

CRP.No.4787 of 2025 and CMP.No.24201 of 2025

¶26

order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.698 of 2022 dated 13.08.2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Alandur. However, considering the fact that H.M.O.P.No.698 of 2022 is pending for more than 10 years, there shall be a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge, Alandur, to dispose of the said H.M.O.P. preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27