Mr. SEKAR REPORTER
Mr. SEKAR REPORTER
Lordship s m subramaniyam order –The Judgment and Decree, dated 19.02.2005, passed in O.S.No.36 of 2005, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai, cannot be accepted as a valid dissolution of marriage between the writ petitioner and the third respondent. ii. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to initiate all suitable actions against the officials / employees, who all are accountable and responsible for their negligence, lapse, and dereliction of duty in the matter of dealing with the complaints and allowing the third respondent to retire from service with all terminal and pensionary benefits. iii. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue Circulars to all the Branches to initiate action against all such complaints or informations regarding the bigamous marriage etc., and conduct enquiry and institute appropriate actions under the Discipline and Appeal Rules as well as to file criminal case before the competent authority. [02/08, 12:53] Sekarreporter1: 20 iv. The writ petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for the purpose of claiming maintenance from the third respondent by following the procedures contemplated under law. v. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to verify the genuinity or otherwise of the nominations given by the respective employees of the Corporation before entering the same in their service records and pension records. Such a procedure must be adopted in the interest of protecting the respective spouses. 31.With these directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
2 Aug, 2019
[10/31, 20:37] sekarreporter1: https://www.sekarreporter.com/2018/10/31/8ways-order-tssj-bench-w-p-nos-16146-of-2018-and-etc-batch-t-s-sivagnanam-j-and-v-bhavani-subbaroyan-j-order-of-the-court-was-made-by-t-s-sivagnanam-j-mr-n-l-raja-learned-senior-coun/ [10/31, 20:37] sekarreporter1: 3 committees. 6.During the course of hearing of these batch of writ petitions, we had come across a case of illegal felling of tree very close to the proposed alignment of the project Highway and the said issue is still pending before us. We are informed that the Tree Act has not been enacted in the State of Tamil Nadu, though it appears that certain NGOs, who were interested in early enactment of such a statute had even prepared a draft act. 7.In the light of the above, we direct the Government Pleader to get instructions from the appropriate authority as to why Biodiversity Management Committees have not been formed in the State, whether a biodiversity register is prepared for the State and within what time frame, the Tree Act will be enacted in the State of Tamil Nadu. List this matter on 01.11.2018, at 02:15 p.m. (T.S.S., J) (V.B.S., J.) 31.10.2018 Note : Registry is directed to upload the order copy today itself preferably before 08:00 p.m. abr/mpa http://www.judis.nic.in
31 Oct, 2018
LL SC sanctions divorce to couple without six months ‘cooling-off’ period ￼ Legal Correspondent NEW DELHI , OCTOBER 16, 2018 18:12 IST UPDATED: OCTOBER 16, 2018 18:25 IST The judges were convinced that the couple have taken a conscious decision to part as friends The Supreme Court has allowed a couple to go their separate ways without waiting for the mandatory “cooling-off” period of six months on learning that they have decided to part as friends. A Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and S.K. Kaul said the court found the husband and wife both “well-educated”. The judges had a long interaction with the couple and was “convinced that they have taken a conscious decision to part as friends” after entering into an amicable settlement. In terms of the settlement, the husband has paid the woman ₹. 12.5 lakh. The apex court dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It also quashed criminal proceedings before a Gujarat court. Though the couple had come to the Supreme Court on a transfer of their legal dispute from a family court in Delhi to that in Gujarat, the apex court intervened to end the acrimony itself and smoothened the way for the couple to gain their divorce without bitterness. “Having regard to the background of the litigations between the parties, we are convinced that there is no point in requiring the parties to wait for another six months. Accordingly, the period between first motion and the second motion is waived,” the Bench recorded in a September 25 order. This is one of the first cases in which the Supreme Court has followed its own ruling in September 2017 that Hindu couples who have mutually agreed to separate need not wait anymore for the mandatory “cooling-off ” period of six months before divorce. The judgement was pronounced by a Bench of Justices (now retired) A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit last year. Previously, under the Hindu Marriage Act, once a couple moves a court of law for divorce, they have to wait for a minimum period of six months before the court actually passes a decree of divorce. Divorce by mutual consent was introduced as an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act in 1976. The waiting period under Section 13B was mandated to prevent couples from taking any hasty decision to end their marriage. Marriage is a sacrament in the Hindu religion. Divorce was granted only after the cooling-off period and once the court found there was no further chance for reconciliation. “The waiting period will only prolong their agony,” Justice Goel had written in the 2017 judgement. The apex court had held that waiting period should be done away with in cases where there is no way to save the marriage and all efforts at mediation and conciliation have run its course; where parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child, etc, between themselves; and already a year and a half has passed since their first motion for separation. The application for waiver of waiting period can be filed in court within a week of their first motion for separation. The proceedings can be done through video-conferencing, the court had observed.
16 Oct, 2018
*Srinath the sensation* – Justice R.Suresh Kumar wondered how a lower Court could permit Selvah to withdraw his suit and allow him to approach High Court without first deciding Mr. Atlee’s petition to reject the plaint. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, appearing for Director Atlee vehemently argued that KP Selvah is indulging in forum shopping by first approaching a lower Court, withdrawing his case from there and then approaching the High Court. Justice R.Suresh Kumar of Madras HC wanted to first clear the legal doubt on procedures to be followed while filing such cases before going into merits of case filed by script writer KP Selvah accusing director Atlee of plagiarizing his script for Bigil movie. Director Atlee claimed that he wrote the movie script in July 2018. Selva, who said that Atlee plagiarised his story had reportedly penned his script in October 2018. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, viz. Atlee’s Counsel argued forcefully that KP Selvah’s case must be dismissed. After hearing the submissions on both sides, orders were reserved.💐💐💐
17 Oct, 2019
I’m rakshika raj i have completed bsc nursing in 2018 and got certificate from governor,I went to register in Tamil Nadu nurses and midwives council to get my license to practice as a transgender nurse but the nursing council doesn’t allow me to register as transgender they said their nursing council doesn’t allow transgender person to register as a transgender nurse ,for only male and women and their is no byelaws to register as a transgender nurse, so august I have file writ petition .
17 Oct, 2019
சூரியனையும்,சந்திரனையும் ஆய்வு செய்ய ராக்கெட் அனுப்பும் அளவுக்கு தொழில்நுட்பம்வளர்ந்துள்ளநிலையில் கால்வாய் கட்டமுடியாது என்று சொன்ன தமிழக அரசுக்கு சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம்கண்டம்நீ திபதி கே.கல்யாணசுந்தரம், https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/cant-a-country-embarking-on-lunar-probe-missions-construct-a-tunnel-for-farming-
17 Oct, 2019
There are no upcoming events at this time.