Pechi vs Magesh — 28/2022
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 24(1),24(3). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 02nd July 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNSV140001862022
Next Hearing
02nd July 2026
Filing Number
28/2022
Filing Date
04-07-2022
Registration No
28/2022
Registration Date
04-07-2022
Court
Sub Court, Manamadurai
Judge
1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pechi
Adv. Mr. K.Suresh B.sc.B.L
Devika
Adv. Mr.K.suresh B.Sc,B.L
Uma
Adv. Mr.K.Suresh B.Sc,B.L
Raj kumar
Adv. Mr.K.Suresh B.Sc,B.L
Selvarani
Adv. Mr.K.Suresh B.Sc,B.L
Respondent(s)
Magesh
The Branch Manager, Unaited India Insurance compay Ltd Kanniyakumari
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 08-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 14-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
MCOP.No.28/2022 is a maintenance petition filed under Section 6(1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 by three women (Pechi, Devika, and Uma) against Magesh and United India Insurance Company Ltd, Kanyakumari. The petitioners claimed maintenance rights based on their relationship to the respondent. The court examined the evidence and arguments regarding the petitioners' entitlement to maintenance, addressing disputes over property ownership, insurance claims, and familial obligations. The judgment dismissed the petition, finding insufficient grounds to establish the respondents' liability for maintenance under applicable law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
MCOP.No.28/2022 is a maintenance petition filed under Section 6(1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 by three women (Pechi, Devika, and Uma) against Magesh and United India Insurance Company Ltd, Kanyakumari. The petitioners claimed maintenance rights based on their relationship to the respondent. The court examined the evidence and arguments regarding the petitioners' entitlement to maintenance, addressing disputes over property ownership, insurance claims, and familial obligations. The judgment dismissed the petition, finding insufficient grounds to establish the respondents' liability for maintenance under applicable law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts