G. A. Sivabalan vs M. Gnanapriya — 376/2021

Case under Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 Section u/s25. Status: Enquiry. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.

Enquiry Next hearing 05-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OP - Original Petition

CNR: TNTR010043902021

Filing Number

1475/2021

Filing Date

30-Jun-2021

Registration No

376/2021

Registration Date

29-Jul-2021

Court

Principal District Court, Tiruvallur

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Last updated 19-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 Section u/s25

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.G. A. Sivabalan

    Adv. N Sivakumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M. Gnanapriya

Case History

  1. 05-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 30-Apr-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 19-Feb-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 23-Jan-2026

    Copy of DecreeView PDF

  8. 23-Jan-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary Petition Allowed. The Principal District Judge at Tiruvallur allowed the restoration petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to revive the original child custody petition that was dismissed for default on 27.06.2023. The court found the petitioner's explanation for non-appearance—being held up in Bangalore for work—reasonable and acceptable, noting he was absent for only one hearing prior to dismissal. The court prioritized the child's welfare and decided the matter on merits rather than maintaining a default dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  9. 23-Jan-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  10. 23-Jan-2026

    Restored

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  11. 27-Jun-2023

    Copy of DecreeView PDF

  12. 27-Jun-2023

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  13. 27-Jun-2023

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  14. 08-Jun-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  15. 30-Mar-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  16. 10-Mar-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  17. 19-Jan-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  18. 22-Dec-2022

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  19. 10-Nov-2022

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  20. 22-Sep-2022

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  21. 12-Sep-2022

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  22. 01-Sep-2022

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  23. 26-Aug-2022

    Counter

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  24. 03-Aug-2022

    Counter

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  25. 14-Jul-2022

    Counter

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  26. 01-Jul-2022

    Counter

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  27. 10-Jun-2022

    Counter

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  28. 21-Apr-2022

    Counter

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  29. 25-Feb-2022

    Issue of Service

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  30. 20-Jan-2022

    Issue of Service

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  31. 18-Nov-2021

    Issue of Service

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  32. 16-Sep-2021

    Issue of Service

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  33. 29-Jul-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 30-Jun-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 376/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Petition Allowed. The Principal District Judge at Tiruvallur allowed the restoration petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to revive the original child custody petition that was dismissed for default on 27.06.2023. The court found the petitioner's explanation for non-appearance—being held up in Bangalore for work—reasonable and acceptable, noting he was absent for only one hearing prior to dismissal. The court prioritized the child's welfare and decided the matter on merits rather than maintaining a default dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case