The Madras High Court set aside a Family Court order directing a man to pay monthly maintenance to his wife, holding there was no credible evidence to establish their marriage.

The Court noted the trial judge wrongly relied solely on the wife's witness without considering the husband's evidence.

The wife claimed marriage and cohabitation, but the husband denied the marriage and alleged the suit was instigated by his sister. Both parties presented witnesses, but all were found unreliable due to bias.

Hence, without proof of marriage, the husband was not obligated to pay maintenance.

The Madras High Court has ruled that a photocopy of a lost cheque can be admitted as secondary evidence in cheque bounce cases.

Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that courts cannot reject secondary evidence solely because there is no proof of the cheque’s loss, particularly when the original had previously been verified by the court.

The decision came after a trial magistrate refused to accept a photocopy of a cheque that was lost after being produced in court. 

The Madras High Court has expressed concern that excessive online gaming is making children “couch potatoes,” stressing that physical education is essential for holistic development.

The court was hearing a petition challenging the state’s policy of capping physical education teacher posts, which only allows appointments in schools with over 250 students a limit the court called “incongruous” with the syllabus.

The bench has directed the state to submit a detailed report on its policy for appointing PE teachers in schools, highlighting the need to ensure adequate physical activity for children alongside academic learning.

[The Secretary, SRP Middle School v. The Director Of Elementary Education]

The Madras High Court has directed police to register FIRs on 467 complaints linked to a large-scale fake insurance claim racket. Petitioners alleged that agents, in collusion with officials, forged documents to fraudulently settle claims.

The court also recommended forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for a comprehensive probe. If the files cannot be traced, a criminal complaint must be lodged, the High Court added.

The bench emphasised the need for a thorough investigation to uncover the entire network and bring the perpetrators to justice.

The matter will be heard next on October 17.

[Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company v Director General Of Police]

The Madras High Court has directed Stanley Medical College to proceed with a minor’s kidney transplant without insisting on the consent of the estranged father.

Justice M. Dhandapani ruled that denying life-saving treatment due to a missing parent’s signature would violate the child’s fundamental right to life under Article 21.

The order came on a petition filed by the boy’s mother, as the father had abandoned the family years ago.

The Court directed the hospital to complete the renal transplant “forthwith,” ensuring the child’s survival is not held hostage to procedural formalities.

[A. Kasthuri v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others]

The Madras High Court has ruled that railway authorities cannot deboard passengers with valid tickets simply because they are travelling to attend or conduct a protest.

Justice B. Pugalendhi clarified that under the Railways Act, 1989, deboarding is permitted only in limited circumstances, such as travelling without a ticket, having an infectious disease, or being in unauthorised areas.

The verdict came in a petition by farmer-leader P. Ayyakannu, who claimed he and fellow protesters were removed from a train despite holding valid tickets. 

The Court upheld that freedom of travel and protest under Article 19 must be respected, subject to lawful conduct.

[P Ayyakannu v. Union of India]

A catering company linked to actor-chef Madhampatty Rangaraj has filed a suit in the Madras High Court against costume designer Joy Crizildaa, seeking to restrain her from making allegedly defamatory social media posts.

Joy had claimed that Rangaraj falsely promised to marry her and tagged his company, Madhampatty Pakashala, in her posts.

The case follows her public announcements regarding pregnancy and a wedding, which Rangaraj reportedly has denied, citing that he remains legally married to another.

The Court directed Joy to file her response to the petition.

The Madras High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to respond to Congress MP Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of large-scale voter list fraud in the 2024 general elections.

The bench of Chief Justice M.M. Shrivatsava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that the petition, filed by advocate V. Venkata Sivakumar, was vague and lacked specific details.

Observing that no court can compel the ECI to “clarify its position,” the bench termed the plea misconceived and imposed ₹1 lakh costs, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the makers of ‘Good Bad Ugly’ from using three songs of renowned musician Ilaiyaraja in the movie without his approval. 

This decision comes as a response to a plea made by the musician against Mythri Movie Makers, as he claimed that the songs were being used in the movie without obtaining his consent or paying royalties for the same.

The court held that under the Copyright Act, 1957, Ilaiyaraja remains the first owner of the songs’ copyright. The Court noted the production house failed to show proof of valid permissions, and granted interim relief in Ilaiyaraja’s favor.

[Dr Ilaiyaraja v Mythri Movie Makers]

The Madras High Court has directed that senior citizens cheated by conmen be paid compensation from the Victim Compensation Fund if police fail to recover their valuables.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy suggested a minimum of 30% of the lost value or ₹5 lakh, whichever is lower, noting rising scams targeting the elderly.

The Court observed that the State’s existing 2013 scheme caps compensation at ₹1 lakh, which is outdated.

In the present case, a 68-year-old woman duped of 17.5 sovereigns of gold was held entitled to ₹4 lakh, payable within 12 weeks.

The Madras High Court has appointed a one-man commission, led by retired Judge V Parthiban, to probe allegations of police brutality against lawyers and law students detained during protests with sanitary workers against Chennai Corporation’s privatisation move.

Protestors claimed unlawful detention and assault, including brutal attacks on Advocate Aarthy and law graduate Valarmathi, while police denied the charges, alleging rioting and damage.

The panel, assisted by the State Legal Services Authority, must report by September 17. 

The Court emphasised that while arrests are legal, assaults are not, and earlier observed that the detention of six protestors appeared unlawful.

The Madras High Court stressed the need for a mindset change to eliminate discrimination in sharing public resources. Justice RN Manjula appreciated government measures to ensure equal access to water taps after SC community members were made to wait for their turn.

The State issued directions to district officials to provide sufficient water connections, prevent unfair hoarding, and enforce the SC/ST Atrocities Act.

The Court also urged community involvement of younger generations, citing the Tenkasi village model, to instil unity in diversity.

The plea was then closed.

The Madras High Court quashed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry’s refusal to recognise the Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris (WLAN).

Justices MS Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan held that the Bar Council exceeded its authority by conducting an unwarranted enquiry and consulting the rival Nilgiris District Bar Association.

Referring to Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1987 and Rule 3(4), the Court clarified that multiple bar associations can exist in one court centre.

It directed BCTNP to grant recognition if WLAN’s application meets statutory requirements within 15 days.

[Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu]

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to three Hindu Munnani workers accused of hate speech inciting riots during a protest against attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh.

Justice M. Jothiraman imposed a unique condition requiring the accused to write the Preamble, Article 19 (Freedom of Speech), Part IV-A, and Article 51A (Fundamental Duties) of the Constitution ten times in Tamil or Hindi and submit it to the Magistrate.

The court took this step to help the accused understand constitutional values. The accused, who had prior permission for the protest, denied the charges and agreed to abide by court conditions.

The prosecution opposed bail, citing previous cases and hateful speech. 

[Raja Mathan and Others v State of Tamil Nadu]