K. Sundammal vs M. Kannan — 65/2021
Case under Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 Section 7(a),7(b),8,10. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 07th August 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNMD010016842021
Next Hearing
07th August 2026
Filing Number
476/2021
Filing Date
09-02-2021
Registration No
65/2021
Registration Date
10-03-2021
Court
Principal District Court, Madurai
Judge
2-I Additional District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K. Sundammal
Adv. Y. Yogeshwari
Respondent(s)
M. Kannan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-I Additional District and Sessions Judge
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | IA Pending |
| 10-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 16-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 25-02-2026 | IA Pending |
| 04-02-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 65/2021 - K. Sundammal v. M. Kannan Date: 25.08.2025 This appears to be a guardianship/custody matter heard before the Additional District Judge in Madurai. The petitioner, K. Sundammal (age 55), testified regarding the care and maintenance of minor children, disputing allegations that she failed to properly support them. She detailed her family circumstances, including her elder son's death (who worked in fire rescue services) and her other sons' employment. The court recorded her cross-examination testimony regarding property acquisition, compensation received following her son's death, and her capacity to care for the minors mentioned in the petition. The judge's order approved her testimony as admissible ("சரி" - correct). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 65/2021 - K. Sundammal v. M. Kannan Date: 25.08.2025 This appears to be a guardianship/custody matter heard before the Additional District Judge in Madurai. The petitioner, K. Sundammal (age 55), testified regarding the care and maintenance of minor children, disputing allegations that she failed to properly support them. She detailed her family circumstances, including her elder son's death (who worked in fire rescue services) and her other sons' employment. The court recorded her cross-examination testimony regarding property acquisition, compensation received following her son's death, and her capacity to care for the minors mentioned in the petition. The judge's order approved her testimony as admissible ("சரி" - correct). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts