Minor Thivesh Sudhan vs Madhan @ Sankaravelavan — 16/2023

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 125. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed

MC - Maintenance Case

CNR: TNTV020063402023

Filing Number

6013/2023

Filing Date

18-Aug-2023

Registration No

16/2023

Registration Date

23-Aug-2023

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruvarur

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 125

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Minor Thivesh Sudhan

    Adv. THIRU. S.R. AYYAPPAN

  2. 2.Divya

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Madhan @ Sankaravelavan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: MC.16/2023 Court Decision: The Tiruvarur Chief Judicial Magistrate court granted the maintenance petition filed by minor Thivesh Sudhan (age 4) and Divya (age 30) against respondent Madhan @ Sankaravelavan under Section 125 CrPC. The court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 20,000 per month to both petitioners for their food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, payable by the 5th of each month; additionally, the respondent must pay Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs to the second petitioner. Key Reasoning: The court found that the respondent abandoned the petitioners without justification after their marriage on 28.01.2018, and the marriage was subsequently dissolved. The respondent, employed as a fire rescue officer, has a statutory duty to maintain his child and estranged wife despite the marriage annulment, as they lack sufficient means for self-support. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-May-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  4. 11-May-2026

    Reopen

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  5. 04-May-2026

    Reopen

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  6. 29-Apr-2026

    Reopen

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  7. 27-Apr-2026

    Reopen

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  8. 24-Apr-2026

    Reopen

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  9. 22-Apr-2026

    Reopen

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  10. 18-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  11. 15-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  12. 09-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  13. 02-Apr-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  14. 02-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  15. 25-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  16. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  17. 18-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  18. 18-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  19. 17-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  20. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  21. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  22. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  23. 02-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  24. 24-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  25. 13-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  26. 02-Feb-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  27. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  28. 09-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  29. 24-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  30. 15-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  31. 06-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  32. 24-Nov-2025

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  33. 24-Nov-2025

    Restored

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  34. 24-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  35. 18-Nov-2024

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  36. 15-Nov-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  37. 15-Nov-2024

    Orders

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  38. 08-Nov-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  39. 18-Oct-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  40. 01-Oct-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  41. 10-Sep-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  42. 05-Sep-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  43. 30-Aug-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  44. 19-Aug-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  45. 16-Aug-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  46. 06-Aug-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  47. 16-Jul-2024

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  48. 09-Jul-2024

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  49. 21-Jun-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  50. 21-Jun-2024

    Orders

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  51. 10-May-2024

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  52. 20-Mar-2024

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  53. 09-Mar-2024

    Lok Adalat

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  54. 09-Feb-2024

    Lok Adalat

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  55. 05-Jan-2024

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  56. 08-Dec-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  57. 08-Nov-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  58. 20-Oct-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  59. 22-Sep-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  60. 23-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  61. 18-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 16/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MC.16/2023 Court Decision: The Tiruvarur Chief Judicial Magistrate court granted the maintenance petition filed by minor Thivesh Sudhan (age 4) and Divya (age 30) against respondent Madhan @ Sankaravelavan under Section 125 CrPC. The court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 20,000 per month to both petitioners for their food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, payable by the 5th of each month; additionally, the respondent must pay Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs to the second petitioner. Key Reasoning: The court found that the respondent abandoned the petitioners without justification after their marriage on 28.01.2018, and the marriage was subsequently dissolved. The respondent, employed as a fire rescue officer, has a statutory duty to maintain his child and estranged wife despite the marriage annulment, as they lack sufficient means for self-support. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case