Lakshmi vs Sivasubramanian — 21/2018

Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 19(1)(F),19(2)(8),20,22. Status: Await Reports. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.

Await Reports Next hearing 10-Jul-2026 this date has passed

DVC - Domestic Violence Case

CNR: TNDG090021802018

Filing Number

3360021/2018

Filing Date

27-Jul-2018

Registration No

21/2018

Registration Date

27-Jul-2018

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Palani

Judge

3-Judicial Magistrate

Last updated 23-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 19(1)(F),19(2)(8),20,22

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Lakshmi

    Adv. V.Rajamanickam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sivasubramanian

Case History

  1. 10-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-May-2026

    Await Reports

    Judicial Magistrate

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Await Reports

    Judicial Magistrate

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate

  6. 06-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate

  7. 26-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate

  8. 12-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate

  9. 14-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate

  10. 31-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate

  11. 10-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate

  12. 19-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate

  13. 08-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate

  14. 11-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate

  15. 25-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate

  16. 20-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  17. 16-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  18. 13-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  19. 06-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  20. 15-May-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  21. 14-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  22. 10-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  23. 13-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  24. 04-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  25. 06-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  26. 09-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  27. 05-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  28. 17-May-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  29. 03-May-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  30. 05-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  31. 22-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  32. 15-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  33. 08-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  34. 16-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  35. 02-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  36. 05-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  37. 08-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  38. 24-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  39. 16-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  40. 27-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  41. 22-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  42. 25-Aug-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  43. 08-Aug-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  44. 07-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  45. 09-Jun-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  46. 02-Jun-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  47. 05-May-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  48. 11-Apr-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  49. 24-Mar-2023

    DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary - DVOP. 21/2018 This is a family court order from Pazhaiyur (Tamil Nadu) dated 24.03.2023 regarding a domestic violence petition. The court examined cross-examination testimony of the defendant (respondent), primarily addressing disputes over matrimonial property, dowry amount (26 sovereigns of gold), marital cohabitation (3-4 months), and the defendant's financial/health condition. The court found contradictions in the defendant's testimony regarding land ownership (claiming 20 acres versus 2.25 acres stated by petitioner) and noted the couple has lived separately for over 20 years with prior divorce proceedings (HMOP No.155/2015). The order appears to be an interim examination record rather than a final judgment, documenting testimony during the proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  50. 24-Mar-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  51. 10-Mar-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  52. 10-Feb-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  53. 20-Jan-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  54. 16-Dec-2022

    DepositionView PDF

  55. 16-Dec-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  56. 18-Nov-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  57. 11-Nov-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  58. 15-Oct-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  59. 07-Oct-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  60. 16-Sep-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  61. 12-Aug-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  62. 22-Jul-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  63. 08-Jul-2022

    DepositionView PDF

  64. 08-Jul-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  65. 24-Jun-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  66. 20-May-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  67. 26-Apr-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  68. 13-Apr-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  69. 25-Mar-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  70. 25-Feb-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  71. 21-Jan-2022

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  72. 10-Dec-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  73. 12-Nov-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  74. 08-Oct-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  75. 03-Sep-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  76. 23-Jul-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  77. 05-Jun-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  78. 23-Apr-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  79. 19-Mar-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  80. 03-Mar-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  81. 19-Feb-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  82. 29-Jan-2021

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  83. 18-Dec-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  84. 20-Nov-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  85. 30-Sep-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  86. 21-Aug-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  87. 10-Jul-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  88. 29-Apr-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  89. 09-Apr-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  90. 06-Mar-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  91. 07-Feb-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  92. 03-Jan-2020

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  93. 22-Nov-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  94. 24-Oct-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  95. 18-Oct-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  96. 20-Sep-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  97. 07-Sep-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  98. 09-Aug-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  99. 09-Jul-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  100. 03-Jun-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  101. 27-Mar-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  102. 06-Mar-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  103. 30-Jan-2019

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  104. 21-Dec-2018

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  105. 16-Nov-2018

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  106. 05-Oct-2018

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  107. 01-Sep-2018

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate

  108. 17-Aug-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  109. 27-Jul-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 21/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary - DVOP. 21/2018 This is a family court order from Pazhaiyur (Tamil Nadu) dated 24.03.2023 regarding a domestic violence petition. The court examined cross-examination testimony of the defendant (respondent), primarily addressing disputes over matrimonial property, dowry amount (26 sovereigns of gold), marital cohabitation (3-4 months), and the defendant's financial/health condition. The court found contradictions in the defendant's testimony regarding land ownership (claiming 20 acres versus 2.25 acres stated by petitioner) and noted the couple has lived separately for over 20 years with prior divorce proceedings (HMOP No.155/2015). The order appears to be an interim examination record rather than a final judgment, documenting testimony during the proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case