E.N.Dinesh Raj vs S.Vidhya - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 4090

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
E.N.Dinesh Raj – Appellant
Versus
S.Vidhya – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Vignesh Venkatachalam
For the Respondent: Mrs.Chithra Sampath Senior Counsel for M/s. Chennai LawAssociates

ORDER :

These two civil revision petitions challenge the orders passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Erode in I.A.No.8 of 2020 in FCOP No.32 of 2019 and I.A.No.5 of 2022 in G.W.O.P.No.116 of 2020 dated 26.05.2023.

2. The civil revision petitioner is the father of a minor child. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as father and mother.

3. The matrimony between the parties took place on 22.02.2013. From the wedlock, a child was born on 03.10.2014. Due to disputes and differences, the parties separated. The mother filed F.C.O.P.No.46 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court at Erode seeking divorce. Due to intervention of friends and family members, the divorce petition was withdrawn on 28.09.2017. Subsequently, the parties reunited only to separate again.

4. On an understanding arrived at between the parties, they presented FCOP No.32 of 2019 invoking Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act . A decree for divorce was also granted on 30.05.2019. For the purpose of this revision, we are not concerned with the other clauses of the agreement. The agreement, in so far as the child is concerned, is found under clauses 10, 12 & 13. Clauses 12 & 13 of the agreement are e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

[No cases identified as bad law. None of the provided case law excerpts contain keywords or phrases indicating they have been overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law.]

Adarsh C. B. VS Aswathy Sidharthan - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1782: Neutral reference; describes a Supreme Court ruling on child welfare and visitation rights without any treatment indicators (e.g., "The Supreme Court ruled that...").

M.Kumaraguru vs K.Mangala - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4115: Neutral reference; mentions a ruling on father's liability for payment without treatment indicators (e.g., "The liability of the father to pay Rs.25,000/- per month...").

E.n.dinesh Raj Vs S.vidhya - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 5825: Neutral reference; discusses procedural or factual matter involving counsel and visitation conditions without treatment indicators (e.g., "Chithra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel... (e) At the time of exercising the visitation...").

K.Hemanth Kumar vs R.Lakshmi Sravya - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18256: Neutral reference; states visitation rights per agreement without treatment indicators (e.g., "The visitation rights are as per the terms of the agreement...").

Sanjay Sharma VS Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma - Current Civil Cases (2025): Neutral reference; provides judgment details on a visitation dispute without treatment indicators (e.g., "JUDGMENT S.K. Mishra, J.... Petitioner’s prayer for visitation right...").

Sanjay Sharma vs Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma - 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 709: Neutral reference; similar to Sanjay Sharma VS Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma - Current Civil Cases (2025), provides judgment details without treatment indicators (e.g., "JUDGMENT :S.K. Mishra, J.... not allowed the Petitioner to meet...").

: Positive reference implied by contextual use in arguments/orders; describes ongoing writ petitions and specific visitation orders without negative treatment, suggesting reliance (e.g., "petition is WP.No.1912/2022... visitation on Saturday i.e., 06.07.2024...").

Ravishankar K.S., S/o Srikantiah K.C. vs Ashwini K.S., W/o Ravishankar K.S. - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 464: Note: Appears to be a duplicate or variant of based on identical content; categorized similarly as positive referenced for consistency.

[]