Allowed

Karthik Balasubramanian v. S. Suchitra

Madras HC23 Feb 2018CMP/3397/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition for extension of a visitation order to enable the minor child to attend a temple ceremony. The court allowed the petition based on a joint memo detailing specific handover dates and remitted the matter to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre for amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed on terms of the Joint Memo; matter referred to Mediation Centre with parties directed to appear on 06.03.2018.

Karthik Balasubramanian Vs S. Suchitra — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twenty Third day of February Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CMP No.3397 of 2018

¶7

IN CRP.4367 of 2017

¶8

KARTHIK BALASUBRAMANIAN

¶9

¶10

S.SUCHITRA [ RESPONDENTS ]

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to

¶12

grant one day extension of the visitation order in favour of the petitioner so as to enable the minor son to attend the participate the consecration / kumbahishekam ceremony of our Kula Devatha / Family Deity temple at Ammaiyagaram Village Budhaluyr Tk Thanjavur Dt on Monday the 26/02/2018 as per order dated 27/11/2017 in CRP No 4367/17 (in CMP.3397/18) in CRP.PD.No.4367/17.

¶13

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.K.SRINIVASAN Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.V.S.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate on behalf of the respondent the court made the following order:-

¶14

In the light of the terms of the Joint Memo, duly signed and filed by learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is directed to take the Minor son viz., Bhuvan Karthik, on 25.02.2018 at about 8.00 a.m. and hand over the child to the petitioner on 26.02.2018 at about 10.00 p.m. to attend Kumbhabishekam at respondent's Kuladevatha temple, Ammaiyagaram Village, Budhalur Taluk, Thanjavur District. on 26.02.2018.

¶15

Further it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.20,000/towards maintenance, without prejudice to their right.

¶16

It is made clear that based on the above terms of Joint Memo, the above said arrangement for the specified dates between

¶17

24.02.2018 to 26.02.2018 and the order passed by this Court in C.M.P. No.20767 of 2017 in CRP No.4367 of 2017 have to be strictly complied by both the parties.

¶18

With the above terms, CMPs are allowed.

¶19

5.In view of the issues involved in this case and also by consent of parties, the matter is referred to Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Court for an amicable settlement.

¶20

Ms.Uma Ramanathan and Ms.Sashidevi, are appointed as Mediators for the above task.

¶21

Parties are hereby directed to appear before the Mediators on 06.03.2018. Thereafter, Mediation Centre shall submit a report to this Court.

¶22

-sd/23/02/2018 / TRUE COPY /

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. ) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶24

¶25

1 THE JUDGE,

¶26

VI ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, CHENNAI.

¶27

2 THE TAMILNADU MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.

¶28

3 MS.UMA RAMANATHAN,

¶29

MEDIATOR, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.

¶30

C.C. to M/S.S.K.SRINIVASAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶31

The Government Advocate, High Court, Madras - 104.

Order

CMP.3397/2018

CRP.4367/2017

Date :23/02/2018

From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Interim Orders in this format SDR 23.02.2018 (IT)

Karthik Balasubramanian v. S. Suchitra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthik Balasubramanian v. S. Suchitra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palaniammal Vs Karuppaiah

Kannan Vs Raja

Arachelvam Vs Sundarsingh

Andrew John Scoott Vs Pl.Murugappan

S.Mahesh Raja Singh Vs K.Saraswathy

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Vs Farida,W/O.Mohammed Ismail