Madras High CourtCONT P(MD)/3056/2025dismissed

P.Mangaiyarkarasi v. S.Hari Devi

2026-01-07Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY in W.P.(MD).No.10702 of 2025 1.P.Mangaiyarkarasi 2.Balaji 3.M.Parvathi 4.T.Kasthuri 5.C.Kootharasan

...Petitioners/Petitioners

Vs.

S.Haridevi ...Contemnor / Respondent PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contemnor / seventh respondent for willful disobedience to the order of this Court passed in W.P.(MD).No. 10702 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025 and punish the respondent for contempt. 1/4

For Petitioners : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondent : Mr.C.Guhaseelarupan

ORDER

This Contempt Petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondent for her alleged willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.10702 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by referring to Paragraph No.7 of the aforesaid order, would submit that despite the directions of this Court, the respondent had evicted the petitioners from the temple premises and thereafter leased out the property for commercial purposes. It is further submitted that the eviction was carried out forcibly and under coercion.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent is managing the temple properties as a hereditary trustee and that the petitioners were originally paying only a sum of Rs.2,000/- as monthly rent. After vacating the petitioners, the 2/4

premises has now been leased out for a monthly rental of about Rs.10,000/-, which is substantially beneficial to the temple.

4. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the materials placed on record do not establish any willful or deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court. On the other hand, it appears that the action taken by the respondent has resulted in better revenue to the temple. Therefore, no contempt is made out against the respondent.

5. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. 07.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TSG 3/4

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY ,J.

TSG in W.P.(MD).No.10702 of 2025 07.01.2026 4/4