Dismissed¶30

V.Muniasamy v. Karuppayee Devi

Madras HC16 Feb 2026CRP(MD)/407/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Guardian appointment Order 32 Rule 15 CPC; Order 32 Rule 3 and Section 151 CPC; unsound mind allegation at execution stage; execution of maintenance decree; belated and motivated plea; ex parte decree confirmed by first and second appellate courts; Section 115 CPC civil revision; Mediation Report dated 27.08.2024 Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre; HMOP divorce dismissed, C.M.A.No.10 of 2024 allowed and divorce granted; party-in-person petitioner; District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court Kariapatti; E.A.No.3 of 2025; E.P.No.2 of 2024; O.S.No.394 of 2004; CRP(MD). No.407 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; N.Senthilkumar J.; decided 16.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the civil revision petition stands dismissed with no costs. ¶30

V.Muniasamy Vs Karuppayee Devi — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the civil revision petition stands dismissed with no costs.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's plea that the maintenance decree is unexecutable unless the respondent is determined to be of unsound mind can be acted upon when raised only at the stage of the execution petition. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The petitioner had not stated before the trial Court or in the appellate Court that the respondent wife is a person of unsound mind, took no steps to establish it, and filed the present petition only at the stage of execution of decree.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The plea that the decree is unexecutable unless the respondent is determined to be of unsound mind, taken only at the stage of the execution petition, is belated and motivated and therefore cannot be acted upon.

¶23

Key takeaways

This Court is not inclined to entertain the petition; it is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), N.Senthilkumar J.: Dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code by the husband (party-in-person) challenging the trial court's order in E.A.No.3 of 2025 in E.P.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.394 of 2004 (District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti, dated 04.11.2025). While his wife executed a maintenance decree decreed in her favour, the husband sought appointment of a guardian for her under Order 32, Rule 3 and Section 151 CPC and Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, alleging she was of unsound mind, pursuant to a Mediation Report dated 27.08.2024 of the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The Court held the plea that the decree was unexecutable unless the wife was determined to be of unsound mind was belated and motivated, as it was never raised before the trial court (where he was set ex parte) nor before the first and second appellate courts, and therefore could not be acted upon; the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no costs.

¶1

CRP(MD). No.407 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 16.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD). No.407 of 2026

¶7

V.Muniasamy ... Petitioner Vs Karuppayee Devi ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to call for the records of the impugned order and set aside the same in E.A.No.3 of 2025 in E.P.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.394 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kariapatti, dated 04.11.2025 with direction to the Court to pass suitable order to the respondent/plaintiff for opening Bank account to credit the arrears of maintenance on seven instalment at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Muniasamy, Party-in-person

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the

¶12

impugned order made in E.A.No.3 of 2025 in E.P.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.394 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

CRP(MD). No.407 of 2026

¶16

Magistrate Court, Kariapatti, dated 04.11.2025 with a direction to the Court to pass suitable order to the respondent/plaintiff for opening Bank account to credit the arrears of maintenance on seven instalment at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶17

2.Originally the suit was filed by the wife seeking maintenance. The suit was decreed in favour of the wife. To execute the above-said decree, an execution petition was filed by the wife before the trial Court. In which the present E.A. has been filed by the husband under Order 32, Rule 3 and Section 151 of CPC for the appointment of a guardian to the respondent/wife pursuant to the Mediation Report dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. According to the petitioner, who appeared before this Court as a party-in-person, he has filed an application to appoint a Guardian for the respondent/wife, who is of unsound mind, under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code.

¶18

3.Earlier the petitioner filed an HMOP petition seeking divorce. The same was dismissed. Against which C.M.A.No.10 of 2024 was filed.

¶19

2/5

¶20

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

¶21

CRP(MD). No.407 of 2026

¶22

A counter was filed by the respondent herein. CMA was allowed and divorce was granted. In the meanwhile, the trial Court granted a decree in favour of the wife. The petitioner has not stated that the respondent wife is a person of unsound mind before the trial Court or in the appellate Court. The revision petitioner has not taken any steps to establish the same before the trial court at any stage. He has filed the present petition only at the stage of execution of decree.

¶23

4.A specific question has been raised with the petitioner with regard to their children. The petitioner submitted that he has two grownup children by name Venkatesan and Karthick. The first son, Venkatesan, is practicing as an Advocate, while the second son, Karthick, is doing an M.Sc. in psychology. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that unless it is determined that the respondent is of unsound mind, the decree could not be executable. Therefore, it is an unexecutable order. Such a plea is taken by the petitioner at the stage of execution petition only. It is not only belated, but it is also motivated, as it is evident that such a plea was not taken before the trial court, where he was set ex parte and confirmed by the first and second appellate courts. Therefore, such a plea

¶24

3/5

¶25

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

¶26

CRP(MD). No.407 of 2026

¶27

cannot be acted upon.

¶28