Mariyabharathi vs Prasath — 71/2025
Case under Indian Divorce Act Section 10,1,ix. Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNRM010028652025
Filing Number
613/2025
Filing Date
18-Aug-2025
Registration No
71/2025
Registration Date
10-Sep-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Last updated 24-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Mariyabharathi
Adv. Thiru. Domnic ravi
Respondent(s)
-
1.Prasath
Case History
-
24-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
22-Apr-2026
Amendment
Principal District Judge
-
27-Mar-2026
Amendment
Principal District Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Copy of depositionView PDF
Summary: In this family court matter (IDOP No. 71/2025) dated 18.03.2026 from the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, the defendant (Mr. Prasanth) was examined on oath and cross-examined. The defendant agreed to corrections in the petition regarding the child's birth date, marriage venue, and respondent's name, and expressed willingness to proceed with the divorce. The court found the defendant's claim of living separately for 3 years while maintaining the wife and child to be inconsistent, and rejected further examination of that point. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Amendment
Principal District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Copy of depositionView PDF
-
12-Mar-2026
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Copy of depositionView PDF
-
05-Mar-2026
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
07-Jan-2026
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
21-Nov-2025
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
24-Oct-2025
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
10-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 71/2025
Summary: In this family court matter (IDOP No. 71/2025) dated 18.03.2026 from the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, the defendant (Mr. Prasanth) was examined on oath and cross-examined. The defendant agreed to corrections in the petition regarding the child's birth date, marriage venue, and respondent's name, and expressed willingness to proceed with the divorce. The court found the defendant's claim of living separately for 3 years while maintaining the wife and child to be inconsistent, and rejected further examination of that point. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts