Nathiya vs Sureshkumar — 5/2024
Case under Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 Section 125. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 22nd April 2026.
MC - Maintenance Case
CNR: TNMY080012672024
Filing Number
1267/2024
Filing Date
14-Mar-2024
Registration No
5/2024
Registration Date
14-Mar-2024
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkali
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
22-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Last updated 28-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Nathiya
Adv. Thiru. R. KARTHIK RAJAN
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sureshkumar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
22-Apr-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Mar-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Mar-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Mar-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Feb-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Oct-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Oct-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
15-Sep-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
28-Aug-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Aug-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Jul-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Jul-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
Case Summary: Nathiya v. Sureshkumar (DVC.5/2024) This is a witness deposition (not a final judgment) in a maintenance case before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkali. Petitioner Nathiya testified on 10.07.2025 regarding her maintenance petition against her husband Sureshkumar. Key facts: married since 25.10.2009, separated since 2018, has one child, works as a temporary teacher earning ₹15,000/month. Nathiya seeks maintenance for herself and her child, claiming her husband—a police officer earning significantly more—refuses to support them. She denied reconciliation despite her husband's willingness to cohabit and clarified her sole objective is financial support, not reunion. The deposition records her testimony and cross-examination responses addressing the couple's separation, her employment, and her maintenance claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Jul-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Jun-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Jun-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Jun-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
04-Jun-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
20-May-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
02-May-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Apr-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Mar-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Mar-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Mar-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
17-Feb-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
17-Feb-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Feb-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
22-Jan-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Jan-2025
Appearance
Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Jan-2025
Appearance
Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Dec-2024
Appearance
Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Nov-2024
Appearance
Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Nov-2024
Appearance
Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Nov-2024
Appearance
Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Nov-2024
Counter
Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Oct-2024
Counter
Judicial Magistrate
-
23-Aug-2024
Counter
Judicial Magistrate
-
14-Aug-2024
Counter
Judicial Magistrate
-
31-Jul-2024
Counter
Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Jun-2024
Counter
Judicial Magistrate
-
22-May-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-Mar-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 5/2024
Case Summary: Nathiya v. Sureshkumar (DVC.5/2024) This is a witness deposition (not a final judgment) in a maintenance case before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkali. Petitioner Nathiya testified on 10.07.2025 regarding her maintenance petition against her husband Sureshkumar. Key facts: married since 25.10.2009, separated since 2018, has one child, works as a temporary teacher earning ₹15,000/month. Nathiya seeks maintenance for herself and her child, claiming her husband—a police officer earning significantly more—refuses to support them. She denied reconciliation despite her husband's willingness to cohabit and clarified her sole objective is financial support, not reunion. The deposition records her testimony and cross-examination responses addressing the couple's separation, her employment, and her maintenance claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts