Madras High Court
CRP/5779/2026 of Golda Sherly Vs S.Thanigaivelan on 8 October 2026
CRP No. 5779 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 5779 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011749722026}
Mrs.Golda Sherly
..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Mr.S.Thanigaivelan
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 31.10.2025 passed in
I.D.O.P.No.2575 of 2023 on the file of the Learned V Additional Family Court, Chennai, restore the same to filed for disposal on merits in accordance with law, and consequently allow I.A.No.3 of 2024, permitting the Petitioner’s duly registered Power of Attorney Agent to represent and prosecute the proceedings on her behalf.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.R.Nasrine
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the Family Court, dismissing the petition for divorce filed by the petitioner/wife in I.D.O.P.No.2575 of 2023.
2. When the Civil Revision Petition was presented before the Registry, an objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the revision. Since the petitioner insisted on listing of the case for decision on maintainability, the
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )
CRP No. 5779 of 2026
Registry numbered the matter and listed the case for hearing under the caption ‘For Maintainability’.
3. When the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for hearing, this Court, pointing out the alternative remedy available under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C., raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the revision.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit the main Original Petition was filed by the petitioner through her Power Agent and that the petitioner had filed a separate application in IA.No.3 of 2024, to permit the petitioner to appear through Video Conferencing and to confirm her father Mr.Gopi, as her Power Agent to present and prosecute the main Original Petition. Without considering IA.No.3 of 2024 filed by the petitioner, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the Original Petition for failure of the petitioner to appear before it. It is further submitted that the Family Court, while dismissing the Original Petition, observed that the petitioner was intentionally withholding the child and failed to disclose the possible date for her appearance.
5. A perusal of the preamble portion of the impugned order passed by the Family Court in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in I.D.O.P.No.2575 of 2023 would indicate that, when the main Original Petition and the Interlocutory Application were taken up for hearing on 31st October 2025, neither the petitioner nor her Power
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )
CRP No. 5779 of 2026
Agent was present before the Court. After noting the absence of both the Power Agent as well as the petitioner, the Family Court dismissed the main Original Petition as well as Interlocutory Application for default. The petition filed by the petitioner to permit her father to act as her Power Agent and prosecute the case was also dismissed for default, as the Power Agent had failed to present before the Court. In such circumstances, the Court had no other option but to dismiss the same for default.
6. The petitioner has an effective remedy before the very same Court under Order IX Rule 9 of the C.P.C. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned Court, seeking restoration of the Original Petition as well as the Interlocutory Application, which were dismissed for default. In the said application if any filed by the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner to raise objections with regard to any observations made in the order dismissing the case for default. No costs. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kak
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )
CRP No. 5779 of 2026
To The learned V Additional Family Court, Chennai.
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )
CRP No. 5779 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J. kak CRP No. 5779 of 2026 08-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )