ALSO READHC dismisses petition against Chennai Corporation AIADMK cadre files petition in Chennai HC seeking investigation into Jayalalithaa's death HC seeks Chennai police commissioner's appearance before it HC directs Chennai CoP to appear over pending crime cases HC seeks SC order copy on hawkers from Chennai Corporation
"The couple has not made out a prima facie case for trial and their case in judicial magistrate court is devoid of merit," the Judge, who had on April 11 reserved orders on the petition, said in the verdict.
They had also sought a monthly maintenance of Rs 65,000, saying they were in a very poor financial position.
However, the actor denied their submissions, saying their statements were false and prayed the high court to quash the suit.
A medical report was filed last month in response to the court's directive for medical verification of Dhanush's identification marks in the wake of the couple's claim.
The report had said identification marks given by the aged couple were not found on Dhanush. But there was a possibility that moles could have been removed.
Reacting to the high court verdict, the couple said they would file an appeal against it.
The judge also rejected the plea of the couple's advocate Titus that the doctors who examined Dhanush should be cross-examined.
Objecting to the legal notice served on Dhanush earlier stating that he was liable to pay maintenance, the judge said the law had not empowered advocates to pass decrees of maintenance, adding it was the job of magistrates.
Justice Prakash slammed the couple for making 'uncharitable remarks' against the actor by saying he had acted in films as villain and drunkard.
When an actor dons the role of a villain in reel life, one cannot conclude that in real life also he is like that, he said.
During the hearing, it was noticed that the school transfer certificate produced by the couple had the date of birth of Kalaichelvan as April 14, 1987 while in hospital record it was mentioned as November 7, 1985.
Besides, no FIR had been filed when Kalaichelvan went missing.
The Judge said the censor certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification showed that Dhanush had worked in a film in 2002 itself, whereas Kalaichelvan, going by the District Employment Office records, was unemployed at that time.
Kalaichelvan, in his note before leaving the parents, did not state he was deserting them because of his abiding interest in film as claimed by the parents, he noted.
The judge said there was no materials to show that the aged couple took steps to trace Dhanush.