Chennai: The divorce case of C. Joseph Vijay and his wife Sangeetha Sornalingam was adjourned once again on Monday after neither of them appeared before the Chengalpattu Family Court.

As the matter came up for hearing, both Vijay and Sangeetha remained absent, and their counsel represented them before the court.

In view of their non-appearance, the judge adjourned the case and posted it for further hearing on August 7.

Repeated Adjournments in the Case

The high-profile matrimonial dispute has witnessed repeated adjournments in recent months.

During earlier hearings, too, neither Vijay nor Sangeetha appeared in person before the court. On those occasions, both sides were represented by their lawyers, who informed the court about difficulties in attending the proceedings physically.

Plea for Video Conferencing Appearance

Sources familiar with the case said requests had been made seeking permission for the couple to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing. The plea reportedly cited security concerns and logistical challenges arising from Vijay’s position as Chief Minister and the public attention surrounding the case.

The family court had earlier deferred the matter to June 15 after considering submissions from both sides. However, with neither party appearing on Monday, the proceedings could not move forward, resulting in another postponement.

Divorce Petition Filed in 2025

Sangeetha filed the divorce petition before the Chengalpattu Family Court in December 2025, seeking dissolution of her marriage with Vijay on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. In her petition, she also sought alimony and requested permission to continue residing in the couple’s residence at Neelankarai in Chennai.

Public Attention on High-Profile Dispute

The case has drawn considerable public and political attention due to Vijay’s status as the leader of the TVK and subsequently the Chief Minister. Every development in the proceedings has been closely followed by political observers and the media.

With Monday’s adjournment, the matter will now be taken up nearly two months later, when the court is expected to consider the next steps in the proceedings.