ADVERTISEMENT

HC adjourns actor Dhanush case to March 27

March 20, 2017 07:56 pm | Updated December 01, 2021 12:23 pm IST - MADURAI

The Melur-based couple had filed the maintenance case before a Judicial Magistrate at Melur near here in November last year.

Actor Dhanush, arrives at the Madras High Court bench in Madurai. File photo

The Madras High Court Bench here on Monday adjourned to March 27 further hearing on a petition filed by actor Dhanush to quash a maintenance case filed against him by a couple based at Melur near here.

The couple had claimed the actor to be their biological son who dropped out of Class XI and went to Chennai to pursue his interest in acting in 2002.

Justice P.N. Prakash adjourned the case after hearing the case in-camera in his chambers for nearly two hours. The judge had decided to hear the case in private to maintain the privacy of both the parties involved in the litigation. The decision was taken after Dhanush’s counsel told the court, during the last hearing, that the actor was being trolled on the social media.

ADVERTISEMENT

The couple R. Kathiresan (65) and his wife K. Meenakshi (53) had filed the maintenance case before a Judicial Magistrate at Melur near here in November last seeking a direction to the actor to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.65,000. They claimed him to be their son K. Kalaichelvan who had changed his name to Dhanush.

It was only after the Magistrate issued summons to Dhanush, the present petition was filed in the Bench. Justice G. Chockalingam, who heard the petition at the first instance, directed the actor to appear in the court to verify whether he had visible identification marks on his body as mentioned in the school transfer certificate of the couple’s son.

Accordingly, the actor appeared before the High Court Bench on February 28 and he was subjected to physical examination by a government doctor to find out if he had a mole on his left collarbone and a scar on the left forearm. Subsequently, the judge stayed all further proceedings pending before the Magistrate until further orders and left the case to be handled by his successor.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is a Premium article available exclusively to our subscribers. To read 250+ such premium articles every month
You have exhausted your free article limit.
Please support quality journalism.
You have exhausted your free article limit.
Please support quality journalism.
The Hindu operates by its editorial values to provide you quality journalism.
This is your last free article.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT