A KAVIYA vs P GANESHKUMAR — 27/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 144. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
MC - Maintenance Case
CNR: TNTV020039142025
e-Filing Number
10-12-2025
Filing Number
3764/2025
Filing Date
11-Dec-2025
Registration No
27/2025
Registration Date
11-Dec-2025
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruvarur
Judge
2-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.A KAVIYA
Adv. Ganesan M
Respondent(s)
-
1.P GANESHKUMAR
Case History
-
08-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
02-Jun-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-May-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
30-Apr-2026
DepositionView PDF
Case Summary: MC No. 27/2025 Petitioner: A Kaviya Respondent: P Ganeshkumar Court: Tiruvarur Family Court Date: 30.04.2026 Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court found that the petitioner admitted to maintaining a close friendship with another man despite her marriage, and that she is unwilling to reconcile with the respondent. The respondent has no obligation to provide maintenance. The court rejected the petitioner's claims and upheld the testimony as credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Apr-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Apr-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
21-Apr-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Apr-2026
Enquiry
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Mar-2026
Counter
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Mar-2026
Counter
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Feb-2026
Mediation
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Jan-2026
Mediation
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 27/2025
Case Summary: MC No. 27/2025 Petitioner: A Kaviya Respondent: P Ganeshkumar Court: Tiruvarur Family Court Date: 30.04.2026 Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court found that the petitioner admitted to maintaining a close friendship with another man despite her marriage, and that she is unwilling to reconcile with the respondent. The respondent has no obligation to provide maintenance. The court rejected the petitioner's claims and upheld the testimony as credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts