Disposed

J.Vijeyarani v. R.Dellibabu @ Roshan

Madras HC10 Nov 2021A/2478/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application regarding custody, the Court granted the petitioner mother interim custody of her minor children, ruling that no useful purpose would be served by adjournment due to the respondent's consistent absence, unless the respondent shows cause to the contrary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted interim custody of minor children pending disposal of main petition.

J.Vijeyarani Vs R.Dellibabu @ Roshan — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.No.2478 of 2016 in O.P.No.372 of 2016

¶2

A.No.2478 of 2016 in O.P.No.372 of 2016

¶3

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶4

O.P.No.372 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner (mother) seeking to

¶5

appoint her as the guardian for her minor children.

¶6

A.No.2478 of 2016 has been filed in O.P.No.372 of 2016 seeking for

¶7

interim custody of her minor children, R.V.R.Ajay Varman and R.V.R.Arjun Samrrat.

¶8

By order dated 01.08.2016, in A.No.2478 of 2016, this Court granted

¶9

an interim order allowing the petitioner to continue having custody of her children until further orders. Thereafter, periodically the said interim order granted by this Court was extended.

¶10

As seen from the earlier proceedings, the respondent, though served

¶11

with notice in this application, has continued to remain absent. This Court by

¶12

its order dated 22.06.2016 also directed the Registry to print the name of Mr.Ambedkumar as learned counsel for the respondent. The name of the

¶13

counsel for the respondent is also printed in the cause list today.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶15

Page 1/4

¶16

A.No.2478 of 2016 in O.P.No.372 of 2016

¶17

Ever since filing of this application, the petitioner is having custody of her minor children. No useful purpose will be served, if this interim application is kept pending, that too, when the respondent has chosen to remain absent all throughout the proceedings. Further, being the mother and being minor children, the petitioner is entitled to have interim custody.

¶18

Accordingly, A.No.2478 of 2016 is allowed as prayed for and the petitioner is granted interim custody of her minor children, R.V.R.Ajay Varman and R.V.R.Arjun Samrrat, pending disposal of O.P.No.372 of 2016.

¶19

Post the main original petition before the learned Additional Master-I for recording of evidence on 01.12.2021. The learned Additional Master-I is directed to complete recording of evidence within a period of two

¶20

weeks from 01.12.2021 and thereafter, place the matter before this Court on 15.12.2021.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶22

Page 2/4

¶23

A.No.2478 of 2016 in O.P.No.372 of 2016

¶24

Post the matter on 15.12.2021.

¶25

srn

¶26

10.11.2021

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶28

Page 3/4

¶29

A.No.2478 of 2016 in O.P.No.372 of 2016

¶30

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶31

srn

¶32

A.No.2478 of 2016
in O.P.No.372 of 2016

¶33

10.11.2021

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶35

Page 4/4

J.Vijeyarani v. R.Dellibabu @ Roshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Vijeyarani v. R.Dellibabu @ Roshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.K.Sumeeth Kumar Vs J.Preetha

P.Gunasundari and 3 others Vs R.Janarthanan and 4 others

J.S.Jayabharathy Vs Nil

N.R.yamuna Vs D.Bhuvaneswari

Mrs.Mamta Daga Vs Mr.Deepak Om Prakash Daga

Pradeep Swaminathan Vs v.Jayaseelan and 6 others