CSKCL Managing Director Kasi Viswanathan alias K.S. Viswanathan said the cricketing company had been using songs, dialogues, and music from those movies in its promos for quite a few years but Sun TV Network did not raise any objection till March 1, 2026. File.
| Photo Credit: R. Ragu

New Delhi:

“Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship and shared experiences,” the Supreme Court has said as it upheld a Madras High Court decision granting divorce to an estranged software engineer couple.

A bench of justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale said the length of separation and the evident animosity between husband and wife make it clear that there is no possibility of the marriage being revived.

“Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship, and shared experiences. When these essential elements are missing for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal formality devoid of any substance,” the bench said.

It added that the court has consistently held that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, is a relevant factor in deciding matrimonial disputes.

“In the present case, the length of separation and the evident animosity between the parties make it clear that there is no possibility of the marriage being revived,” it said.

The bench said that both husband and wife have been living separately for two decades now and this fact further reinforces the conclusion that the marriage is no longer viable.

It said that the top court has held that prolonged separation creates a presumption of the marriage having irretrievably broken down.

“In this case, the parties have not shared a marital life since 2004, and all attempts at reconciliation have failed,” it added.

The top court dismissed the appeal of women who had challenged the June 8, 2018 decision of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The bench said the husband has provided sufficient evidence to show that the appellant (wife) was engaged in a pattern of behaviour that caused him immense mental and emotional distress.

“This included filing false and baseless criminal complaints against the respondent and his family, which not only strained their relationship but also caused significant damage to his reputation and peace of mind,” it said.

Justice Nath, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench said, “In matrimonial disputes, this Court has emphasized the need to prioritize welfare and dignity of both parties. Forcing a marriage to continue when it has become a source of unhappiness and conflict undermines the very purpose of the institution of marriage.” The bench further said in the present case, the interests of both the parties are best served by allowing both parties to move on with their lives independently.

“In view of the above, this court upholds the judgment of the high Court granting a decree of divorce to the respondent. The appellant’s submissions are rejected as lacking in merit, both on procedural and substantive grounds,” it said.

The bench reiterated that cruelty, long separation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as established in this case, and thus, provide sufficient justification for dissolving the marriage.

It said that while granting the decree of divorce, the court deemed it appropriate to award permanent alimony to the appellant wife and the parties’ daughter.

“Although the appellant wife has not specifically claimed any monetary relief or maintenance during these proceedings, it is trite and equitable to grant such relief, considering the financial status of the parties, their professional backgrounds, and the larger interest of justice,” the bench added.

The bench noted that both husband and wife are software engineers and were earning handsomely at the time of their marriage more than two decades ago.

“It is reasonable to infer that their respective incomes must have increased substantially over the years. However, considering the dynamics of their separation and the financial burdens the appellant may have borne during the protracted litigation, this Court finds it necessary to award her a lumpsum permanent alimony of Rs 50 lakh to secure her financial independence and ensure that she can lead her life with dignity,” it said.

The bench said further, this court recognizes the responsibility of both parents toward the well-being, education, and future prospects of their child.

“Although the daughter may be of an age where she is approaching independence, the financial support provided through this judgment will be instrumental in meeting her educational needs as well as expenses related to her future marriage. A sum of Rs. 50 lakh is, therefore, awarded to the daughter for these purposes. This is in line with the principles of safeguarding the interests of children suffering under distress of such prolonged matrimonial disputes between the parents,” it said.

Both parents share the duty of ensuring the daughter’s well-being and future security, and this financial provision will contribute to fulfilling that duty, it said.

“For the reasons stated above, this court directs the respondent husband to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakh to the appellant (wife) as permanent alimony and an additional Rs. 50 lakh to their daughter for her education and future expenses, such as her marriage. These payments shall be made within four months from the date of this judgment,” it ruled.

The parties had entered into the marriage on June 30, 2002 and a daughter was born out of the wedlock on July 9, 2003. The discord between the parties arose just after the birth of the child, when the wife refused to return from her parental home, where she had gone for the delivery of the child.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Chennai:

The Madras High Court has declined to grant an interim order to restrain individuals or social media channels from reviewing films within three days of their theatrical release.

Justice S. Sounthar, while hearing the petition filed by the Tamil Film Active Producers Association (TFAPA), questioned the feasibility of such a restriction, stating, “Reviewers are entitled to review any film; it is their opinion.”

Advocate Vijayan Subramanian, representing TFAPA, argued that certain individuals, under the guise of film reviews, defame directors, actors, and producers, causing damage to their reputations.

The association sought restrictions on these activities and requested the court to issue directions to the City Police Commissioner to prevent YouTube channels from entering cinema theatres for the purpose of film reviews.

The petition highlighted the lack of regulation and self-discipline on social media platforms, leading to defamatory remarks and coordinated efforts to manipulate film ratings, a practice known as “review bombing.”

TFAPA claimed these actions, often motivated by personal or business rivalries, negatively influence public opinion and harm box-office collections before the audience forms its own judgment.

The judge refused to issue a blanket order or directions in this regard, emphasising the importance of freedom of expression.

Notices were issued to the Union and state governments, as well as YouTube, for their response.

The case has been posted for further proceedings after four weeks.

The petition follows growing concerns among Tamil filmmakers about the impact of early reviews on their films’ commercial performance.

Recently, films like ‘Kanguva’, ‘Indian 2’, and ‘Vettaiyan’ were reportedly affected by negative reviews and fan interviews on YouTube channels.

TFAPA and the Tamil Nadu Producers Council have called for guidelines to regulate online film reviews and urged theatre owners to ban YouTubers from conducting interviews on their premises.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Chennai:

The Madras High Court has restrained the Music Academy in Chennai from presenting its Sangita Kalanidhi MS Subbulakshmi Award 2024 to renowned Carnatic singer TM Krishna. The Music Academy is, however, free to present him the award in any other name.

The court ruled in a petition filed by MS Subbulakshmi’s grandson V Srinivasan, who had cited the musician’s will in which she wanted nothing in her honour. Earlier, Mr Srinivasan had also alleged TM Krishna had made comments trivialising MS Subbulakshmi’s achievements. Mr Krishna has denied the charge, saying his comments have been taken out of context.

The legal steps against the popular singer TM Krishna began after a few Carnatic artists opposed the award to him and said they would boycott the sabha earlier this year. The award was to be presented in December during the annual music season.

The Music Academy stood its ground and explained that TM Krishna was chosen by a committee after due process.

TM Krishna, a Magsaysay awardee, is known for his Carnatic musical talent and revolutionary ideas to take this esoteric art form to the masses and has ruffled several feathers in the process.

Many also point out that MSS’ grandson has been selective in his opposition, that he has not opposed several other initiatives or projects by others in the name of MS.

The Music Academy, the award sponsor ‘The Hindu’ or TM Krishna are yet to comment on the development.

Chennai:

In a heartwarming decision, the Madras High Court has allowed a veterinarian to reunite with a partially paralysed baby monkey he treated for 10 months in Coimbatore.

The animal, a survivor of multiple dog bites in Coimbatore, was recently transferred to the Arignar Anna Zoological Park in Chennai by forest authorities, without considering its welfare, the petitioner said in a plea.

The veterinarian Dr Vallaiappan, while seeking custody of the monkey, argued that it requires ongoing care as it hasn’t fully recovered or become independent. The court has permitted him to visit the monkey on Saturday and file a report so the court can decide on the plea.

The veterinarian took care of the animal from December last year to October this year, till authorities shifted the monkey a fortnight ago. The court has observed that the bonding between a human and an animal ought to be handled sensitively. 

Justice Shamim Ahmed who has been transferred to the Madras High Court from Allahabad High Court
| Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

Madras High Court Chief Justice K.R. Shriram on Monday (September 30, 2024) administered the oath of office to Justice Shamim Ahmed who has been transferred here from the Allahabad High Court.

Advocate General P.S. Raman welcomed the judge and introduced him to the Bar.

Justice Ahmed was born on March 8, 1966, and graduated in arts and law from Allahabad University. He had enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on April 17, 1993, and practised in civil, constitutional, service, labour, and company law apart from the criminal side.

During his stint as a lawyer in Allahabad, he had served as a Central government counsel since 2004 and also as standing counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh between May 22, 2015, and July 7, 2017.

He was elevated as an additional judge of the Allahabad High Court on December 12, 2019, and was made permanent on March 26, 2021.

Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry chairman P.S. Amalraj, Madras High Court Advocates Association president G. Mohanakrishnan, Madras Bar Association president M. Baskar, Women Lawyers Association president Revathi, and Law Association president Selvaraj too welcomed the judge.

State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, State Government Pleader A. Edwin Prabhakar, other law officers and Bar members of both Chennai and the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court participated in the event.

Chennai:

The Madras High Court today directed the Ministry of Civil Aviation to make announcements in Tamil mandatory in all domestic flights operating to and from the airports in Tamil Nadu.

The court directive came following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a person, C Kanagaraj, the World Tamil Research Trust President, who urged the court to make announcements in Tamil mandatory in all flights operating from the airports in the state.

Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu said that courts could not issue a positive direction as sought in the PIL.

The division bench said that the Central government could be directed only to consider a representation made by the litigant within a period of 12 weeks.

The first division bench issued such a direction and disposed of the PIL petition pending since 2021.

The petitioner had contended that announcements in Tamil were being made even in foreign countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.

In the submission before the Madras High Court, he asked why should such announcements could not be made mandatory in all domestic flights operated to and from Tamil Nadu.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Chennai:

The Madras High Court has reprimanded the Enforcement Directorate for overstepping bounds while investigating illegal sand mining in Tamil Nadu and neighbouring Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan pointed out the federal agency could not claim jurisdiction since mining, illegal or otherwise, is not listed as a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The High Court therefore stayed proceedings against the accused sand mining contractors and directed the ED to release seized properties.

“We are of the opinion that unless information with regard to any case (as a scheduled offence) is registered, and such an offence has generated proceeds of crime, which is dealt with by petitioners, no action can be initiated,” the court said.

The order had been passed Tuesday. The court’s full judgement was released today.

This is not the first time the ED has been ticked off in connection with this case.

READ | “Completely Illegal”: ED Summons To 5 Tamil Nadu Officers Paused

In November last year the High Court stayed – for three weeks – the agency’s summons to five District Collectors. The court observed the ED had limited powers but did not pause the probe.

The agency had summoned the DCs of Ariyalur, Vellore, Thanjavur, Karur, and Tiruchirapalli.

Tamil Nadu’s ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam had sought to invalidate the summons, arguing the ED did not have unbridled powers and that its summons went against the spirit of federalism.

Claiming it had already filed police cases, and that it was willing to provide details, the state argued the ED ought to seek details only through it and that any investigation ought to be with its consent.

The Supreme Court, though, has been less inclined to interfere.

In February the ED moved the top court to challenge the stay on summons to the five DC. During the hearing, Justice Bela M Trivedi asked, “Why is the state troubled… what is its stake in the matter?”

The Supreme Court subsequently directed the five officials to appear before the ED.

READ | Supreme Court Setback For Tamil Nadu In Illegal Sand Mining Probe

Justice Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal called the state’s plea “strange and misconceived”.

The alleged sand mining racket – which the ED claims is worth Rs 4,000 crore or more, according to data provided by an expert from the Indian Institute of Technology in Madras – has been controversial for several years now, including when the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam was in power.

The AIADMK is now the main opposition party in the state.

Tax officials had said the miners’ illegal profit was routed into investments in other businesses, such as spinning and sugar mills, and hotels. Certain overseas transactions were also being scrutinised.

It has become a major political flashpoint in the southern state, and was leveraged by the Bharatiya Janata Party in February as it sought to make an impact during the Lok Sabha election. The BJP’s state boss, K Annamalai, warned, “ED will not leave who are involved in illegal sand mining.”

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.

Chennai:

The body of K Armstrong, BSP’s Tamil Nadu chief who was hacked to death near his Chennai home Friday, cannot be buried at the party’s office in the state capital, the Madras High Court ruled today, upholding the DMK government’s stand.

The court said K Armstrong’s body can be buried in a one-acre privately-owned plot in the adjoining Thiruvalluvar district. It added that the funeral procession taken out by BSP supporters must be held peacefully.

Earlier, the slain BSP leader’s wife K Porkodi had filed a petition in court, seeking its approval to bury the body at the Chennai party office. The petitioners argued that the 2,600 square feet was owned by the BSP.

Additional Advocate General J Ravindran, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, opposed the petition. “It is a residential area. Without going into merits, we have identified three places around 2,000 sq ft each close to the BSP office and their residence that they can choose for burial or memorial, whatever they want,” he said, according to Bar and Bench.

Justice V Bhavani Subbarayan noted that burial is only allowed at pre-notified places and the petitioners would need the state government’s permission.

“We have already passed a government order rejecting their demand as it is a primary residential area, thickly populated, inadequate approach road, and the building itself doesn’t have requisite permissions,” Mr Ravindran said.

Addressing Senior Advocate Chandrasubbu, appearing for K Armstrong’s wife, the judge said, “Sentiment is different, but you cannot make a burial in a residential area as per the rules. That is why I am asking if you can choose another place.

“I understand your emotions but you have to understand what the court is saying. There will be a law and order problem and everyone will suffer then. This area has small lanes. You need a bigger place where thousands of people can gather. If something happens, you will not be responsible, but we all saw what happened in Hathras stampede,” the court said.

Mr Ravindran said that the state government has a “heart, but our hands are tied because we have to go by rules”.

“All of us are with them. We understand at this moment everyone is anguished and angry. But we can’t risk a law and order problem,” the judge added.

The body is currently at the Corporation School Ground in Chennai so that K Armstrong’s supporters can pay tribute.

“I am saying this as a sister and not a judge. Complete the burial at the place that the State is giving now. Later you purchase a bigger area and we can decide on shifting the body there. You can’t keep the body just like that for so many hours,” the court said earlier today.

The petitioner then chose the Thiruvalluvar spot. The local panchayat has made the necessary arrangements. K Armstrong’s family had also said they wanted to build a memorial. The court has asked them to proceed with the funeral and said that they can approach the state government over the memorial later.

After delivering the verdict, the court told the petitioner that it is aware that their loss cannot be compensation. “But also know that the State has been helpful to you.”

“Let him be in peace now. Go support his wife. She has a small baby to take care of. Nobody is against anybody here,” it added.

The 47-year-old state BSP chief was hacked to death by at least six people near his home on Friday evening. Eight suspects have been arrested so far and the city police have ruled out any political angle to the heinous crime.

BSP chief Mayawati has demanded a CBI investigation into the attack. “I urge the state government, especially the CM, to ensure law and order in the state. The weaker sections, in particular, should feel safe. Had the government been serious, the accused would have been arrested. Since that is not the case, we urge the state government to refer the case to the CBI,” she said.

A mass wedding being conducted by HR&CE department at the Sri Abirami Amman Temple in Dindigul, Tamil Nadu. File photo for representational purpose only.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Madras High Court on Thursday, March 14, 2024, wanted to know whether the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department will come up with a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for performingcunder its control.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy directed counsel for the HR&CE Department to get instructions by April 15 since tying the nuptial knot was a common phenomenon at almost all temples in the State.

The direction was issued at the hearing of a public interest litigation petition filed by S. Mohanaraman to forbear the trustees of the Balasaarthuleeswarar Temple at Nellore Pet in Gudiyatham from granting permission for conducting weddings or similar ceremonies on the temple premises.

P. Valliappan, counsel for the petitioner, told the court that though the petitioner had no objection to just tying of the nuptial knot before deity, he was aggrieved by the conversion of the temple premises into a dining hall by renting chairs and tables by the families which perform the weddings.

He said such practices were contrary to the customs and were not in consonance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947. The court was also told that the petitioner had made a representation in this regard on July 29, 2022.

Finding force in his submissions, the judges said the HR&CE Department could come up with certain guidelines to be followed with respect to conduct of weddings at all temples under its control. They said the ceremony could be conducted inside the temple but dining should be arranged elsewhere.