The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing a custody application due to lack of jurisdiction. The court held that under the Guardians and Wards Act, jurisdiction depends on where the minor ordinarily resides.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(PD)No.2353 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.10.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(PD)No.2353 of 2011
M.V.P.Mariappan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent Vs. G.Vijayarani ... Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.230 of 2010 in G.W.O.P.No.318 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi dated 05.09.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.K.Mahendran
O R D E R
This revision is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking custody of his minor son namely Aravind.
The petitioner herein and the respondent got married on 21.06.1992 as per Hindu religious rites and customs. The petitioner would contend that his marital life was miserable from the date of his marriage and the respondent has treated him with cruelty. He would submit that she was not in the habit of listening to any of his advice and would act as per her whims and fancies. The respondent was not able to conceive a child for which she has undergone medical treatment and after 11 years, she had conceived a child. However, once again due to her ignoring medical advice she had a premature delivery and the baby died after three days. Thereafter, she had delivered the son, whose custody is now sought for by the petitioner, on 29.11.2008 at Trivandram. The petitioner's son is named as Aravind. The respondent is a Judicial Officer.
1/4
C.R.P.(PD)No.2353 of 2011
his in-law's house and the child was affectionate to him. The petitioner would further submit that when there was no physical contact between him and the respondent herein, she had conceived and delivered a baby girl on 02.11.2009 at Trichy. The petitioner thereafter learnt about her adulterous conduct and immediately asked her to hand over his son vide his letter dated 15.11.2009. On receiving the said letter, the respondent had contacted the petitioner through his sister and agreed to hand over the son Aravind to him. On 21.01.2009, the petitioner went to Trichy and the respondent handed over the custody of the minor over to him. After getting the custody of the child, the petitioner had gone to Trichndur. Thereafter, within 2 days of getting the custody of his minor son i.e on 23.01.2009 while he was staying at a lodge, the Sub Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy and the Inspector of police, Tiruchendur came into the lodge and forcibly got the minor child from the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that the respondent, who is the Judicial Officer has misused the power and forcibly took away the minor. The minor son since 23.01.2009 was under the interim custody of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner wasleft with no other alternative but to file the petition for custody of his minor son. The petitioner has filed a petition before the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin in G.W.O.P.No.318 of 2009.
2/4
C.R.P.(PD)No.2353 of 2011
petitioner is before this Court.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the papers.
11.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction to the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property.
3/4
C.R.P.(PD)No.2353 of 2011
been residing at Trichy with his mother. It is only for two days that the petitioner had custody of the minor child and on 23.01.2009, the custody was once again taken back by the mother. The petitioner would contend that the Court at Tuticorin had jurisdiction only because the minor had been forcibly taken away by the police officials at Tiruchendur. Therefore according to the petitioner, the court at Tuticorin had jurisdiction to hear the application.
Assistant Registrar (RECORDS)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
CM
To
The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi
+1 CC to M/s.R.BALAKRISHNAN, Advocate ( SR-94373[F] dated 24/10/2019 )
C.R.P.(PD)No.2353 of 2011 23.10.2019
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Court at Tuticorin had jurisdiction to entertain the custody petition when the minor ordinarily resided in Trichy.
Whether a short stay of the minor in Tuticorin for custodial purposes could establish jurisdiction over the place of residence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manish Sehgal Vs. Meenu SehgalReferred¶27
C.R.P.No. 48 of 2013 in Manish Sehgal Vs. Meenu Sehgal
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.V.P.Mariappan
G.Vijayarani
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
