Allowed¶27

Palaniammal v. K. Kannan

Madras HC10 Jul 2025CRP(MD)/1328/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CRP(MD). No.1328 of 2023; Palaniammal vs K.Kannan; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; M. Dhandapani J; Article 227; Sub Court Uthammapalayam; HMOP No.134/2012; ex parte divorce decree 04.01.2014; IA No.90/2018; order dated 14.09.2022 set aside; restoration of divorce petition; restitution of conjugal rights petition pending; clubbing of petitions; disposal within six months; IA No.99/2018 dismissed 20.09.2024; MC No.9/2008 interim maintenance arrears; no costs; decided 10/07/2025.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order dated 14.09.2022 in IA No.90/2018 in HMOP No.134/2012 set aside; HMOP No.134/2012 restored to file; trial Court directed to club both petitions and dispose of them preferably within six months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs. ¶27

Palaniammal Vs K. Kannan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order in IA No.90/2018 in HMOP No.134/2012 ought to be set aside and HMOP No.134/2012 (ex parte divorce decree) restored to file. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

In order to give a quietus to the issue and to try both the petitions by hearing the parties and to come to a conclusion, it was just and necessary to set aside the order of the trial Court in IA No.90/2018.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed; the order dated 14.09.2022 is set aside and HMOP No.134/2012 is restored to the file of the trial Court.

¶27

Key takeaways

The trial Court is directed to club both the petitions (the restored divorce petition and the pending restitution of conjugal rights petition) and dispose of the same.ratio¶27
The clubbed petitions are to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), M. Dhandapani J — Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India in CRP(MD). No.1328 of 2023 (Palaniammal v. K.Kannan), decided 10/07/2025. The petitioner-wife challenged the order and decreetal order dated 14.09.2022 in IA No.90/2018 in HMOP No.134/2012 (divorce suit decreed ex parte on 04.01.2014) of the Sub Court, Uthammapalayam. Holding that, with her restitution of conjugal rights petition still pending, it was just and necessary to give a quietus to the issue by trying both petitions together, the Court allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 14.09.2022, restored HMOP No.134/2012 to file, and directed the trial Court to club both petitions and dispose of them as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. The respondent contended the parties had been judicially separated for about 18 years and restoration would cause prejudice; counsel for the petitioner also pointed to pending interim-maintenance arrears in MC No.9/2008.

¶1

CRP(MD). No.1328 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 10/07/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRP (MD). No.1328 of 2023

¶7

Palaniammal ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

K.Kannan ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order dated 14.09.2022 in IA No.90/2018 in HMOP No.134/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Uthammapalayam.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order and decreetal order dated 14.09.2022 in IA No.90/2018 in HMOP No.134/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Uthammapalayam.

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

CRP(MD). No.1328 of 2023

¶17

The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband and

¶18

their marriage was solemnized on 21.02.2007 and they were blessed with a female child and due to matrimonial discard, the respondent filed a petition for divorce in HMOP No.134/2012 and the same was decreed exparte in favour of the respondent on 04.01.2014 against which, the petitioner filed IA No.99/2018 with a delay of six years to set aside the exparte decree and the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2024. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the Sub Court, Uthammapalayam and the same is pending. In the interregnum, the petitioner also filed maintenance case in MC No.9/2008 and the trial Court passed an order of interim maintenance and there are arrears and the respondent has not yet married. For all these reasons, the learned counsel prays that since the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is pending and in order to give a chance to the petitioner, HMOP No. 134/2012 is to be restored and tried along with the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights and hence, prays for interference.

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

CRP(MD). No.1328 of 2023

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondent would however submit

¶24

that the petitioner appeared through a counsel in HMOP No.134/2012 and subsequently on the hearing date, no one appeared and hence, exparte order came to be passed and a divorce was granted and for the past 18 years, the petitioner and the respondent are judicial separated and after lapse of several years allowing to restore the HMOP will create prejudice to the respondent and hence, prays for dismissal.

¶25

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

¶26

materials available on record.

¶27

It is seen that the petition filed for divorce was decreed exparte and the petition filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights is also pending. In order to give a quietus to the issue and to try both the petitions by hearing the parties and to come to a conclusion, it is just and necessary to set aside the order of the trial Court in IA No.90/2018. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 14.09.2022 is set aside and HMOP No.134/2012 is restored to its file. The trial Court is directed to club both the petitions and dispose the same

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

CRP(MD). No.1328 of 2023

¶31

as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶32

10.07.2025

¶33

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR TO 1.The Sub Court, Uthammapalayam.