Allowed¶25

Sairama Lavanya v. S. Selva alias Kishore

Madras HC16 Apr 2026CMP/32826/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 128 days; appeal against judgment and decree dated 21.01.2025 in O.P.No.115 of 2021, Family Court, Chennai; dissolution of marriage / divorce on cruelty; restitution of conjugal rights denied; financial crisis as sufficient cause; CMP in CMA SR No.97281 of 2025; Madras High Court; bench C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Rajasekar; Registry to number appeal if otherwise in order.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 128-day delay in filing the appeal; Registry directed to number the appeal if otherwise in order. ¶25

Sairama Lavanya Vs S. Selva alias Kishore — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP No. 32826 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CMP No. 32826 of 2025 in CMA SR No.97281 of 2025

¶8

Sairama Lavanya W/o.S.Selva alias Kishore No.48/117, Ground Floor, Palaniamman Kovil 6th St, Mattankuppam, Triplicane, Chennai 5 and also at, No.3, Iyyappan Nagar, Narasangkuppam, Anupuam, Chenglepet Dist 603 109

¶9

..Appellant(s)

¶10

¶11

S. Selva alias Kishore S/o.Selvam, No.24A, Canal St, Mattankuppam, triplicane, Chennai 5

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

To condone the delay of 128 days in filing the above said appeal.

¶14

For Appellant(s): Mr.P.Hasnah For Mr.A.Sivakumar Alias Sivaaji For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan

¶15

__________ Page1 of 3

¶16

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

¶17

CMP No. 32826 of 2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

¶20

This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 128 days in

¶21

filing the appeal questioning the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2025 in O.P.No.115 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Chennai.

¶22

2.Notice had been directed in this petition and the learned counsel had entered appearance and had also filed a counter affidavit.

¶23

3.It is contended there were two separate original petitions filed, one for Restitution of Conjugal Right and the other for grant of Divorce on the ground of cruelty. Both were taken up together. It is contended that the appellant herein had filed an appeal only against grant of Dissolution of Marriage and not

¶24

against the denial of Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

¶25

4.Be that as it may, with respect to the reason for delay, it had been stated that the petitioner could not engage a counsel in the High Court owing to financial crisis. Taking that factor into consideration, we would condone the delay. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.

¶26

5.The Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.

¶27

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 16-04-2026

¶28

smv

¶29

__________ Page2 of 3

¶30

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

¶31

CMP No. 32826 of 2025