R. Sangeetha S/o. Rajendran vs S. Bakiyaraj — 483/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 29th September 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 29-Sep-2026

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNVP340006922024

Filing Number

576/2024

Filing Date

21-Nov-2022

Registration No

483/2024

Registration Date

21-Nov-2022

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvennainallur

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

Last updated 01-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138
Mp/1/2026 Classification : 256 Cr.pc Section R. Sangeetha S/o. RajendranS. Bakiyaraj
Mp/2/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section R. Sangeetha S/o. Rajendran
Mp/3/2026 Classification : 256 Cr.pc Section R. Sangeetha S/o. RajendranS. Bakiyaraj
Mp/4/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section S. BakiyarajR. Sangeetha S/o. Rajendran

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.R. Sangeetha S/o. Rajendran

    Adv. Suresh Babu.V

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.S. Bakiyaraj

  2. 2.Prabavathi

  3. 3.Pandiyan

  4. 4.Sivasamkari

Case History

  1. 29-Sep-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 30-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  4. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  5. 13-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  6. 09-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  7. 01-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  8. 25-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  9. 25-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

    This document records a witness deposition (Judicial Form No. 53) in case C.C. No. 483/2024 dated November 25, 2025, before the District Civil and Commercial Court, Tiruvannamalai. The witness, a 50-year-old woman (PW-2), testified regarding a matrimonial dispute involving the petitioner's daughter's marriage to Respondent 1 twelve years ago. The witness described providing dowry and household support but alleged the respondent subsequently engaged in extramarital relations and demanded additional dowry. The cross-examination by respondents' counsel was not conducted despite opportunity. The deposition was recorded and certified by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  10. 25-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  11. 25-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  12. 21-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  13. 24-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  14. 29-May-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  15. 08-May-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  16. 24-Feb-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  17. 24-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  18. 10-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  19. 28-Jan-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  20. 28-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  21. 07-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  22. 21-Sep-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  23. 02-Jul-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  24. 04-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 21-Nov-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 483/2024

casestatus.in Summary

This document records a witness deposition (Judicial Form No. 53) in case C.C. No. 483/2024 dated November 25, 2025, before the District Civil and Commercial Court, Tiruvannamalai. The witness, a 50-year-old woman (PW-2), testified regarding a matrimonial dispute involving the petitioner's daughter's marriage to Respondent 1 twelve years ago. The witness described providing dowry and household support but alleged the respondent subsequently engaged in extramarital relations and demanded additional dowry. The cross-examination by respondents' counsel was not conducted despite opportunity. The deposition was recorded and certified by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case