S.Mathivanan vs S.Archana — 3/2025
Case under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section U/Sec.13(1). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNTM220000212025
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
25/2025
Filing Date
02-01-2025
Registration No
3/2025
Registration Date
02-01-2025
Court
Sub Court, Polur
Judge
3-Subordinate Judge, Polur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S.Mathivanan
Respondent(s)
S.Archana
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Subordinate Judge, Polur
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-06-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 3/2025 - S. Mathivanan v. S. Archana Case Status: Cross-examination of witness completed on April 16, 2026. This appears to be a matrimonial dispute where the respondent (S. Archana) testified under oath regarding marital issues with the petitioner. The witness testified that she received dowry of gold ornaments and household items worth 10 lakhs at marriage, has lived separately from her husband for 4 years at her mother's house, and refused reconciliation attempts despite his single phone call asking her to return. She denied fulfilling marital duties and claimed her husband was instigated by his family members to confine her. The court completed the cross-examination; no final order on the petition's merits is reflected in this document. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 3/2025 - S. Mathivanan v. S. Archana Case Status: Cross-examination of witness completed on April 16, 2026. This appears to be a matrimonial dispute where the respondent (S. Archana) testified under oath regarding marital issues with the petitioner. The witness testified that she received dowry of gold ornaments and household items worth 10 lakhs at marriage, has lived separately from her husband for 4 years at her mother's house, and refused reconciliation attempts despite his single phone call asking her to return. She denied fulfilling marital duties and claimed her husband was instigated by his family members to confine her. The court completed the cross-examination; no final order on the petition's merits is reflected in this document. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts