← Library
Madras High CourtCMA(MD)/229/2026dismissed

Perumal v. Sathya

2026-02-19Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan,Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :19.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA and CMP(MD) No.2052 of 2026 Perumal ... Appellant vs.

Sathya

...Respondent

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, to set aside the order passed in HMOP No.442 of 2017 dated 29.01.2024 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.

For Appellant : Mr. K.R.Manimaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Muniyandi

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.] This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred as against the order passed in HMOP No.442 of 2017 dated 29.01.2024 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.

Page No.1 of 4

2. The appellant is the husband of the respondent herein. The appellant got married the respondent on 13.12.2009 and out of the wedlock they were blessed with a female child and thereafter due to some misunderstanding they got separated. The respondent filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage in HMOP No.442 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai and the same was decreed in favour of the respondent by an order dated 29.01.2024.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred this appeal with a delay of 397 days.

4. After expiry of the appeal period the respondent got married with one Ajay and they are now living happily and therefore the challenge to the decree of divorce had become futile and no purpose would be served keeping the appeal pending.

Page No.2 of 4

5. In view of the same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there are so many properties looted by the respondent which were purchased by the appellant's hard earned money, therefore the appellant is seeking appropriate remedy as against the respondent in the manner known to law. It is also made clear that this observation cannot be construed as that the appellant has limitation to sue as against the respondent.

[G.K.I., J.] [R.P., J.] 19.02.2026 Index : Yes / No aav To:

The Family Court, Madurai Page No.3 of 4

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

AND R. POORNIMA,J.

aav DATED :19.02.2026 Page No.4 of 4