R. Vishwanathan @Suresh vs. V. Meenakshi
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Mention Memo
Before:
Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Prashant Kumar Mishra
Stage:
AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
List On (Date) [13-10-2023], Top of the board [High on the Board as per Record of Proceeding dated 27-09-2023]
Listed On:
27 Sept 2023
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.69 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12072/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-04-2021 in CMA No. 3513/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
R.VISHWANATHAN @SURESH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
V. MEENAKSHI Respondent(s)
Date : 27-09-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Petitioner(s)
- Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv. Mr. V. Sibi Kargil, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. Sachin Kumar Verma, Adv.
- Mr. N. B. V. Srinivasa Reddy, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Swati Jindal, AOR
- Mr. Hari Haran, Adv.
- Mr. Amaan Shreyans, Adv.
- Mr. Sowmya China, Adv.
- Mr. Raja Rajeshwaran, Adv.
- Ms. Nidhi Kumar, Adv.
- Ms. Anjali Kaushik, Adv.
- Ms. Meenakshi Vimal, Adv.
- Mr. S. Hariharan, Adv. Mr. Aman Shreyas, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the marriage was solemnized in the year 2001, the
parties are residing separately since 2002. Out of the wedlock, a son was born in the year 2002 and has been living with respondent-wife.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that their relationship has irrevocably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation.
3. He, therefore, submits that it is a fit case for this court to exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and put an end to the relationship which has already broken down.
4. He submits that the petitioner is willing to pay an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) towards maintenance of his son, as no maintenance is required to be paid to the respondent-wife, who is also an employee in the State Bank of India, like the petitioner.
5. We find the request to be reasonable.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to take instructions on the said suggestion from the respondent-wife and revert to the Court.
7. We give two weeks' time to the learned counsel for the respondent-wife to take instructions.
8. List this matter on 13.10.2023, high on the Board.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (ANJU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
2
