Dismissed

J. Mary Immagulate Rederigo v. B.Joseph Clarance Peeris

Madras HC16 Feb 2026REV.APLC(MD)/268/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review of a divorce appeal decided on merits after recording no appearance for the respondent. The petitioner claimed her counsel died in 2021 and notice should have been issued. The court held the petitioner lacked diligence, found no reason to recall the order since the parties had lived separately since 1990, and dismissed the review without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

J. Mary Immagulate Rederigo Vs B.Joseph Clarance Peeris — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.268 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD) No.19704 of 2025

¶2

SUNDER MOHAN. J.,

¶3

The captioned Review Application of Madurai Bench was listed before this Court through Video Conferencing and was dismissed on 16.02.2026. But inadvertently, the order was typed as if it was a case of Principal Bench and the signed order was uploaded and despatched wrongly by the Principal Bench. Hence, this matter is listed today under the caption 'For Being Mentioned', at the instance of Registry.

¶4

Therefore, Registry is directed to change ‘In the High Court of Judicature at Madras’ at the 1^st page of the order as ‘Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court’ and in the Docket, change ‘Rev.Applc.No.268/2025’ as ‘Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.268 of 2025’ and thereafter, upload and despatch the corrected order, through Madurai Bench of this Court, forthwith.

¶5

17.04.2026

¶6

Note to Office:

¶7

Registry to despatch the order copy by 22.04.2026

¶8

ars/dk

¶9

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

¶10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶11

DATED: 16-02-2026

¶12

CORAM

¶13

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶14

Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.268 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD) No.19704 of 2025

¶15

J.Mary Immagulate Rederigo, W/O. Joseph Clarance Peeris, No.149, Victoria Street, Silver Lan, V.E.Road, Tuticorin District.

¶16

Petitioner(s)

¶17

¶18

B.Joseph Clarance Peeris, S/o. Benito, No.72 B, Sethuraja Street, Tuticorin.

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

PRAYER: Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. r/w. under Section 114 of C.P.C. to review the judgment and decree made in C.M.A.(MD) No.528 of 2024 dated 22.08.2024 on the file of this Court and allow this Review Application.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan

¶22

For Respondent(s): Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The review petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner / respondent in the impugned Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was not heard by this Court.

¶26

It is the case of the review petitioner that the petitioner’s counsel passed away in the year 2021 and hence this Court ought to have issued notice to the review petitioner before deciding the appeal filed by the respondents.

¶27

In the above referred CMA the respondent herein had challenged the dismissal of his petition for divorce. This Court had passed the judgment on 22.08.2024 on merits after recording that there was no appearance for the review petitioner.

¶28

The review petitioner had not engaged any counsel after her counsel passed away in the year 2021. This Court is not expected to be aware of the fact of the death of the petitioner’s counsel. The review petitioner who had not been diligent, is accusing the court of not issuing notice to her.

¶29

Be that as it may. The order in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, as stated above, has been passed on merits. This Court finds no reason to recall the said order and rehear the petitioner as admittedly the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent / husband is dead as they are living separately from the year 1990.

¶30

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

¶31

Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected

¶32

miscellaneous is closed.

¶33

16-02-2026

¶34

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No bkn

¶35

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

¶36

SUNDER MOHAN J.

¶37

Bkn

¶38

Rev.Applc.No.268/2025

¶39

16.02.2026

¶40

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

J. Mary Immagulate Rederigo v. B.Joseph Clarance Peeris

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

J. Mary Immagulate Rederigo v. B.Joseph Clarance Peeris

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayasuriya Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police

Ashok Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Annadurai @ Chandrasekaran Vs State Rep by

Mani Vs State Rep by

R.Vijayakumar Vs R.Eshwaramoorthy

Dasappan Vs M.Thangavelu