High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 10 MAD CK 3538

S.Balamurugan vs E.Amutha Ilavarasi

Madras High Court · Decided on 8 October 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
N. Anand Venkatesh, J
CASE NUMBER
CRP No. 6448 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 364 words

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the docket order dated 28.07.2026 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee and for a direction to the Court below to take the Interlocutory Application on file, number the same and to order substituted service.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.

3.

The petitioner filed HMOP.No.762 of 2025 seeking for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The efforts were taken by the petitioner to serve notice on the respondent, but the notice that was sent to the respondent both through Court and privately were returned ‘Unserved’. Since the petitioner had sent the notices to the known address of the respondent and it was not able to be served on the respondent for more than a year, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application seeking for substituted service. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Court below, without ordering substituted service, has once again ordered for fresh notice both through Court and privately to the respondent. It is under these circumstances, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

4.

In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has attempted to serve notice on the respondent, both through Court and privately to the known address and it was returned with an endorsement ‘Addressee Absent’ on one occasion and ‘No Such Person’ found on the other occasion and hence, the petitioner filed Interlocutory Application for substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of C.P.C. The Court below, without considering the same, has once again mechanically ordered for fresh notice to the address to which already Court notice as well as private notice was sent and it was returned.

5.

In view of the above, the Court below is directed to number I.A.SR.No.5340 of 2026 and order substituted service, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6.

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No Costs.