K.Harikaran vs C.Emelda — 391/2022
Case under Indiandivorceact Section u/s10(1)(x). Status: Enquiry. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNTR010071972022
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
2518/2022
Filing Date
07-11-2022
Registration No
391/2022
Registration Date
21-11-2022
Court
Principal District Court, Tiruvallur
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.Harikaran
Adv. R.Radha Pandian
Respondent(s)
C.Emelda
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Enquiry |
| 26-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 18-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 12-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 07-03-2026 | Enquiry |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: K. Harikaran v. C. Emelda (391/2022) In this divorce proceeding, the Principal District Judge at Tiruvallur allowed K. Harikaran's application to file 28 additional documents as evidence, including bank transaction records, bills, and social media communications (SMS, WhatsApp, Facebook), subject to proof, admissibility, and relevancy. The respondent had objected that electronic evidence requires proper certification under the Evidence Act and that the documents were deliberately withheld to prolong proceedings, but the court found no prejudice would result since trial had not commenced and the respondent could cross-examine on authenticity during hearings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: K. Harikaran v. C. Emelda (391/2022) In this divorce proceeding, the Principal District Judge at Tiruvallur allowed K. Harikaran's application to file 28 additional documents as evidence, including bank transaction records, bills, and social media communications (SMS, WhatsApp, Facebook), subject to proof, admissibility, and relevancy. The respondent had objected that electronic evidence requires proper certification under the Evidence Act and that the documents were deliberately withheld to prolong proceedings, but the court found no prejudice would result since trial had not commenced and the respondent could cross-examine on authenticity during hearings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts