Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 29289
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. Senthilkumar, J
S.Gayathiri – Appellant
Versus
M.Janagaraj – Respondent
CRP(MD). No.253 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.S. Sivaram
For the Respondents: V. Dhivya Bharathi, Aayiram K. Selvakumar
Advancing a hearing date in compliance with a higher court's direction for early disposal, where only procedural orders are passed without affecting substantive rights, does not constitute a ground for punishment under Section 340 CrPC or the IPC.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order dismissing an application filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 200, 207, 208, 209, 210, 463, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, seeking compensation and action against the respondent for allegedly using forged documents and manipulating court proceedings. The petitioner contended that the respondent filed a memo to advance the hearing date without providing the petitioner an opportunity to contest, leading to serious prejudice. The court examined whether the advancement of the hearing date based on a memo constituted an illegality. It was observed that the advancement was in compliance with a prior direction of the High Court for early disposal of the case. The court reasoned that since the order passed on the advanced date was purely procedural (ordering notice) and did not affect any substantive rights of the petitioner, the respondent cannot be held liable for punishment. this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- for filing a vexatious application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of matrimonial dispute and the filing of an application for compensation and action for alleged forgery. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. contention regarding the advancement of hearing date versus the intent to comply with court directions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. procedural advancement of hearing in compliance with high court directions does not warrant criminal action if no substantive rights are affected. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. dismissal of vexatious petitions with costs. (Para 12) |
PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 11.12.2025 passed in IA No.2 of 2024 in HMOP No.504 of 2023 on the file of Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 11.12.2025 made in IA.No.2 of 2024 in HMOP.No.504 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The petitioner and the respondent are the wife and husband and the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.11.2020, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to difference of opinion, the respondent/husband filed a petition in FCOP.No.123 of 2023 before the Family Court, Namakkal seeking divorce, which was later transferred to the file of Family Court, Tiruchirappalli and was also renumbered as HMOP.No.504 of 2023, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in TR.CMP(MD) No.392 of 2023, dated 16.08.2023.
3.Pending such petition, the petitioner/wife filed I.A.No.4 of 2023 under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., and Sections 200, 207, 208, 209, 210, 463 and 468 IPC, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and to take action against the respondent. The said application was dismissed on 11.12.2025. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the transfer was made in the main FCOP, the respondent/husband had filed a memo before the Court below stating that the main FCOP petition had been transferred. Acting upon the said memo, the Court below had taken up the matter even before the date originally fixed for hearing.
5.He would further submit that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to be present and contest the proceedings, as a result of which, the petitioner has been put to serious prejudice and irreparable loss. Hence, she filed the present application for the relief stated supra. However, the Court below, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case properly, had dismissed the said application. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the allegation put forth by the petitioner as against the respondent is wholly unfounded and un-sustainable. It is contended that the respondent had merely filed a memo before the Court below bringing to its notice that the main FCOP petition had already been transferred. The said act was only to apprise the Court of the factual position and not with any intention to gain undue advantage or to prejudice the petitioner in any manner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.
7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
8.Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent are the wife and husband. The respondent filed FCOP.No.123 of 2023 before the Family Court, Namakkal, seeking divorce and the same was subsequently transferred to the file of Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in TR.CMP(MD) No.392 of 2023, dated 16.08.2023. The same was numbered as HMOP.No.504 of 2023. At this stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4 of 2023 seeking compensation and to take action against the respondent, on the ground that by producing forged documents, the respondent approached the Court below and obtained orders. The said application was dismissed and the same is under challenge on Revision.
9.From the perusal of papers, it is seen that in pursuance of th
