Lakshmi vs Sivasubramanian — 21/2018
Case under Protectionofwomenfromdomesticviolenceact Section 19(1)(F),19(2)(8),20,22. Status: Await Reports. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
DVC - Domestic Violence Case
CNR: TNDG090021802018
Next Hearing
10th July 2026
Filing Number
3360021/2018
Filing Date
27-07-2018
Registration No
21/2018
Registration Date
27-07-2018
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Palani
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lakshmi
Adv. V.Rajamanickam
Respondent(s)
Sivasubramanian
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate
Await Reports
Await Reports
Orders
Orders
Orders
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-05-2026 | Await Reports |
| 01-04-2026 | Await Reports |
| 12-03-2026 | Orders |
| 20-02-2026 | Orders |
| 06-02-2026 | Orders |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts