Allowed

P.Saravanakumar v. R.C.Sathya Priyanga

Madras HC28 Apr 2022CMA/2784/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal by modifying the underlying custody decree. The appellate order granted the father visitation rights, defined specific handover timings, and provided for exclusive custody during summer holidays until the child's majority.

What did the court decide?

Custody to remain with mother. Appellant granted visitation rights on first Sunday of every month and custody during summer holidays. No costs.

P.Saravanakumar Vs R.C.Sathya Priyanga — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 2784 OF 2018

¶6

P.Saravnana kumar

¶7

… Appellant / Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.R.C.Sathya Priyanga

¶10

2.Minor.S.Magizhan

¶11

(Represented by mother R.C.Sathya Priyanga)

¶12

... Respondents / Respondents

¶13

Prayer :-

¶14

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 (C) of G & w Act) against the order dated 22/10/2018 made in G.W.O.P. No.226 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode.

¶15

Decree :-

¶16

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal coming on for hearing Wednesday 24 th day of November 2021 of perusing the grounds of Appeal, the award of the Tribunal below and the material papers in this case and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs.D.Geetha, Advocate for Mr.D.Divakaran, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate for the Respondent the case and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court while allowing the appeal with modification the doth order and decree as follows :-

¶17

1.That the custody of the child should remain with the mother herein/respondent until the minor son attains the age of majority.

¶18

2.That the appellant herein/respondent is entitled for visitation rights of the child at least once in a month.

¶19

3.That the appellant herein/petitioner be and hereby is permitted to visit the minor son on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m.,and 5.00 p.m., during which the

¶20

respondent shall hand over the custody of the child to the appellant.

¶21

4.That the appellant shall take the custody of the child for a week without the interference of the respondent or his family members during the summer holidays.

¶22

5.That the above said arrangement clause (2 to 4) shall continue till the minor child attains majority.

¶23

6.That there be no costs in this civil miscellaneous appeal.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.

¶30

The Subordinate Judge, Sathyamanagalam.

¶31

The Principal District Judge, Erode.

¶32

Copy to:

¶33

The Section Officer,

¶34

VR Section, High Court,Madras.

¶35

+4ccs to Mrs.Geetha, Advocate, S.R.Nos.29991,29992

¶36

+2ccs to Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate, S.R.Nos.29528,29529

DATED : 28.04.2022

DECREE

CMA.No.2784 of 2018

Allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 22/10/2018 made in G.W.O.P.No.226 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode, etc., as stated therein.

¶41

KV(CO) UMA(16/06/2022)

P.Saravanakumar v. R.C.Sathya Priyanga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Saravanakumar v. R.C.Sathya Priyanga

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

A.Radha Krishnan Vs Vendamani

G. Srinivasan(died) Vs G. Boopalan (Died)

Mr.D.Samuel Robert, Vs a. Cithambaranthan Died.

A.Shameem Bagum Vs M.Shahul Hammeed

R.C. Sathya Priyanga Vs P. Saravana Kumar

Mr.N.R.Srinivasan Vs M/S Sagar Investments