DEEPA vs SURESH — 90/2025
Case under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(ia)(ib). Disposed: Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree on 05th March 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNTM220005252025
e-Filing Number
11-08-2025
Filing Number
575/2025
Filing Date
11-08-2025
Registration No
90/2025
Registration Date
11-08-2025
Court
Sub Court, Polur
Judge
3-Subordinate Judge, Polur
Decision Date
05th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DEEPA
Adv. P Arun Kumar
Respondent(s)
SURESH
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Subordinate Judge, Polur
Disposed
Orders
Arguments
Ex-Parte Evidence
Ex-Parte Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-02-2026 | Orders |
| 05-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 19-12-2025 | Ex-Parte Evidence |
| 01-12-2025 | Ex-Parte Evidence |
Interim Orders
This document records the depositions of two witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) in Case No. 90/2025 before the Subordinate Court, Paloor on February 5, 2026, in what appears to be a matrimonial dispute. Witness P.W.1 (Deepa, age 38) testified and submitted nine documentary exhibits including marriage certificate, family records, Aadhaar copies, and birth certificates of two children (Nithish Kumar and Manushka), while Witness P.W.2 (Thevaraj, age 64, retired) testified but provided no documentary evidence; both witnesses were not cross-examined as the respondent was declared absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document records the depositions of two witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) in Case No. 90/2025 before the Subordinate Court, Paloor on February 5, 2026, in what appears to be a matrimonial dispute. Witness P.W.1 (Deepa, age 38) testified and submitted nine documentary exhibits including marriage certificate, family records, Aadhaar copies, and birth certificates of two children (Nithish Kumar and Manushka), while Witness P.W.2 (Thevaraj, age 64, retired) testified but provided no documentary evidence; both witnesses were not cross-examined as the respondent was declared absent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts