Ravi Mohan vs Aarthi Ravi — CMP/13642/2026

Case under U/s 148 of Cpc Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011194762026

Filing Number

CMP/87246/2026

Filing Date

01-Jun-2026

Registration No

CMP/13642/2026

Registration Date

03-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose

Coram

Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

JUDICIALSECTION

Decision Date

08-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 148 of Cpc Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ravi Mohan

    Adv. Vignesh Venkatachalam,Anu Ganesan,Anu Ganesan, R.Ganesan,M.Rakshita,Anu Ganesan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Aarthi Ravi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Abdul QuddhoseView PDF

    Summary of CMP No. 13642/2026 (Ravi Mohan v. Aarthi Ravi) The Madras High Court dismissed Ravi Mohan's petition seeking extension of the two-week deadline for the III Additional Family Court to dispose of his wife Aarthi Ravi's interim maintenance application. The court held the petition unmaintainable because only the trial court judge, not the petitioner, can request a time extension if unable to meet the deadline. The court declined to address the petitioner's allegation of suppressed material facts, ruling such issues must be decided by the family court itself, not through this extension petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Jun-2026

    Miscellaneous Petitions

    Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose

  4. 01-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CMP/13642/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CMP No. 13642/2026 (Ravi Mohan v. Aarthi Ravi) The Madras High Court dismissed Ravi Mohan's petition seeking extension of the two-week deadline for the III Additional Family Court to dispose of his wife Aarthi Ravi's interim maintenance application. The court held the petition unmaintainable because only the trial court judge, not the petitioner, can request a time extension if unable to meet the deadline. The court declined to address the petitioner's allegation of suppressed material facts, ruling such issues must be decided by the family court itself, not through this extension petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case