Dismissed

S.Angappan @ Samiyappan v. K.P.Shanmugam

Madras HC11 Mar 2021CMA/1676/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging a custody order granting guardianship to maternal grandparents. While upholding the order due to the minor's willingness and financial situations, the court granted the father visitation rights on Sundays.

What did the court decide?

Appellant permitted to visit minor child Praneeth once a week on Sundays between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm in the residence of respondents.

S.Angappan @ Samiyappan Vs K.P.Shanmugam — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

C.M.A.No.1676 of 2020 C.M.P.Nos.12332 & 12335 of 2020

¶6

S.Angappan @ Samiyappan ... Appellant/Respondent

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.K.P.Shanmugam 2.S.Saraswathi

¶9

... Respondents/Petitioners

¶10

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act against the Fair and Final order dated 10.03.2020 made in G.W.O.P.No.72 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur.

¶11

For Appellants : Mr.R.Prabakar

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.M.Guruprasad for R1 & R2

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

The Fair and Decreetal order dated 10.03.2020 passed in G.W.O.P.No.72 of 2018 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶15

The petition under the Guardian and Wards Act was filed by the respondents who are the maternal grand parents of the minor/S.Praneeth. The appellant married the daughter of the respondents on 12.03.2014. From and out of wedlock, the minor/S.Praneeth was born on 15.03.2015 and now aged about 6 years. On 13.04.2018, the mother of the minor/deceased Saranya committed suicide. The case was registered on account of doubt and the investigation was conducted. However, the minor/S.Praneeth was taken care of by the respondent/maternal grand parents who are capable of maintaining the minor. For the past about three years, the respondents/grand parents are maintaining the minor. It is contended that the respondents are running a Trading Company at Kangayam and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month and further constructed the houses and leased out the same for a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Thus,

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

the respondents/maternal grand parents are capable of maintaining the minor and the minor is now studying in school at Kangayam. The respondents pleaded before the trial Court that they are capable of meeting out the expenditure for future education of the minor and they will provide better life to the minor than that of his father against whom a criminal complaint was also lodged. The trial Court considered the documents and evidences and importantly, examined the witnesses. The trial Court carefully scrutinized the income, position and other aspects of the father of the minor as well as the respondents/maternal grand parents. The findings in this regard reveals that the respondents would be in a position to provide better life for the minor and they are capable of maintaining the minor in a better manner. The minor also expressed his consent to live along with his maternal grand parents. When the minor himself has deposed before the Trial Court that he is willing to stay with his maternal grand parents, there is no reason to consider the claim of the appellant in the present appeal. The findings of the trial Court reads as under:

¶18

mtiu ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tprhuiz bra;j nghJ. jhd; jdJ jhj;jh. ghl;oahd kDjhuh;fSld; ,Uf;fnt tpUg;gk; bjhptpj;Js;shh; vd;gJld;. vjph;kDjhuUld; ngrt[k; tpUk;gtpy;iy/ vjph;kDjhuh; ,sty; gpuePj;jpd; ,aw;if ghJfhtyh; vd;w nghjpYk; nkw;brhd;d NH;epiyfspy; ,stypd; cly; kw;Wk; kdeyj;ij fUj;jpy; bfhz;Lk;. fy;tp kUj;Jtk; nghd;w mog;gilj; njitfisa[k; vjph;fhyj;ija[k; fUj;jpy; bfhz;L ghprPypf;Fk; nghJ mth; kDjhuh;fspd; guhkhpg;gpy; ,Ug;gnj rpwe;jjhf ,Uf;Fk; vd;nw , e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ ,J bjhlh;ghf vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s/

¶19

In view of the facts and circumstances and taking note of the fact that the minor himself deposed before the trial Court that he is willing to stay with his maternal grand parents, there is no perversity or infirmity as such in respect of the orders passed by the trial Court.

¶20

The learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that the appellant is more affectionate with his son and without disturbing his custody with the respondents, he may be permitted to visit the minor child once in a week more specifically on Sundays.

¶21

5.The final Report filed before the Sub-Judicial Magistrate(RDO) Erode, it is observed that the appellant father was more affectionate with the minor child.

¶22

6.This being the factum, this Court is of the considered opinion that atmost visitation rights are to be provided at this juncture to see the minor child. Accordingly, the appellant is permitted to visit the minor child Praneeth once in a week specifically on Sundays at 03.00 pm. to 06.00 p.m in the residence of the respondents. The appellant shall not

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

take the child anywhere outside without the consent of the respondents.

¶25

The respondents shall not prevent the appellant from visiting the child and showing the affection towards the minor child.

¶26

In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶27

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ssb/msv
To
The Principal District Judge,
Tiruppur.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to M/s.R.Prabakar, Advocate Sr.15727
+1ccto M/s.M.Guruprasad, Advocate Sr.16031
C .M.A.No.1676 of 2020
aab[co]
srg 15/04/2021

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Angappan @ Samiyappan v. K.P.Shanmugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Angappan @ Samiyappan v. K.P.Shanmugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Subash Chandran Vs S.Tamilselvi

Ilayappan, Vs Shanmughavadivu

Periya Nayaki@Jeevitha Vs Ganesan

G.Rasu Vs Union of India

P.K.Prakash Vs R.Dayalan

J Divya Vs M Deepan Kumar