Banumathi vs Vijayakumar Advocate - Tr. P.Silambarasan — 108/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 22. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM080001832023
Filing Number
178/2023
Filing Date
20-Nov-2023
Registration No
108/2023
Registration Date
22-Nov-2023
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar
Judge
3-Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
Last updated 03-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Banumathi
Adv. Thiru. A. Shanbasha
Respondent(s)
-
1.Vijayakumar Advocate - Tr. P.Silambarasan
Case History
-
09-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
17-Apr-2026
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
01-Apr-2026
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
23-Mar-2026
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
16-Mar-2026
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
13-Mar-2026
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
03-Mar-2026
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
20-Feb-2026
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
10-Feb-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
Case 108/2023 Summary In this case filed by petitioner Banumathi (age 70) against respondent Vijayakumar Advocate and P. Silambarasan under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Parents Act, 1969, the court examined claims regarding maintenance obligations. The petitioner's testimony regarding documents, signatures, and financial transactions was found inconsistent and unreliable. The court dismissed the petition, finding insufficient evidence to support the maintenance claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Feb-2026
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
30-Jan-2026
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
21-Jan-2026
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
18-Dec-2025
Appearance
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
24-Nov-2025
Appearance
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
19-Nov-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
14-Nov-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
07-Nov-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
04-Nov-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
03-Nov-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
03-Nov-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
30-Oct-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
22-Oct-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
10-Oct-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
19-Sep-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
03-Sep-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
26-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
25-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
20-Aug-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
20-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
06-Aug-2025
Trial
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
05-Aug-2025
Restored
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
05-Aug-2025
Issues
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
05-Aug-2025
Issues
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
01-Aug-2025
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
-
01-Aug-2025
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
-
23-Feb-2024
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
-
23-Feb-2024
Disposed
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
22-Feb-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
22-Feb-2024
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
-
22-Feb-2024
Judgement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
20-Feb-2024
Ex-Parte Evidence
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
19-Feb-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
05-Feb-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
22-Jan-2024
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
20-Dec-2023
Written Statement
Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
-
22-Nov-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Nov-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 108/2023
Case 108/2023 Summary In this case filed by petitioner Banumathi (age 70) against respondent Vijayakumar Advocate and P. Silambarasan under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Parents Act, 1969, the court examined claims regarding maintenance obligations. The petitioner's testimony regarding documents, signatures, and financial transactions was found inconsistent and unreliable. The court dismissed the petition, finding insufficient evidence to support the maintenance claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts