Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear on behalf of the wife.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear on behalf of the wife for the entirety of the case and had argued that the husband has inadvertently admitted to subjecting his wife to cruelty in his pleadings and during the course of cross examination.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the alleged accused and had brought to the notice of the court that the victims name was revealed in the first information report. The Hon’ble court had issued general directions to the DGP to ensure compliance failing which Suo-Moto criminal action would be taken.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the wife and had contended that the husband had deliberately filed false particulars in his affidavit of assets to evade payment of maintenance to his wife and daughter. Accepting the contention, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the husband

This petition filed by the petitioners Under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying to pass a decree for dissolving the marriage held on 11.11.2021 at Arasan Palace, No.7, Moovarasampet Main Road, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091 between the petitioners on the ground of Mutual Consent.
The fixed C.F. of Rs.50/- paid by the Petitioners under the Schedule (ii), Article I of the T.N.C.F. Act.

Decreetal Order

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed; and
2. that the marriage between the petitioners held on 11.11.2021 at Arasan Palace, No.7, Moovarasampet Main Road, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091 be and the same is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce on the ground of
Mutual Consent.

Schedule of Costs – Does not arise

Given under my hand and the seal of this court the 23rd day of January 2025.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear on behalf of both parties and had contended that the marriage can be dissolved even if registration has been conducted under Chapter III of the Special Marraige Act.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the respondent and had argued that the petitioner/husband had suppressed his true income of Rs 6,50,000/- per month and had admitted the same in his cross examination. Hence, considering the arguments advanced; the Hon’ble court had reached the conclusion that there were no grounds to interfere with the Impugned Order of the Family Court, Chennai and dismissed the appeal by the husband.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear on behalf of the sole accused and had argued that the averments in the complaint and in the first information report do not prima facie make out a case of rape as alleged by the prosecution. Accepting the said contention, the Hon’ble court was pleased to grant bail to the accused in accordance with law.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the wife and had extracted the truth from the husband during cross examination in order to prove the allegations made by the wife. Accepting the arguments & contentions of Mr Rahul Jagannathan; the Hon’ble family court dissolve the marrige and had held that the wife’s allegations are true.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan had appeared on behalf of the Bar and had advanced arguments with regards to the practical difficulties such as applicability of video conferencing and other procedural aspects to ensure that the functioning of the courts are streamlined and more litigant friendly.

Mr Rahul Jagannathan was engaged to appear for the plaintiff towards recovery of money which was paid by our client to the defendant/promoter towards lease of a property.