Allowed

G.Santhosh v. N.Dhanalakshmi

Madras HC22 Mar 2022OP/229/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for guardianship and custody of two minor daughters, the mother defaulted in cross-examination despite the petitioner proving his relationship. The court allowed the petition, declaring the petitioner as guardian and directing the mother to hand over custody.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed; respondent mother directed to hand over minor children to petitioner within one week.

G.Santhosh Vs N.Dhanalakshmi — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

O.P.No.229 of 2021 and A.Nos.1082, 1083 & 1084 of 2021

¶2

P.VELMURUGAN.,J

¶3

This Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner/father for declaring him as the Guardian of the minor children namely S.Karan, who was born on 18.05.2018 and the second daughter S.Jovitha, who was born on 16.04.2020 and to direct the respondent/mother to handover the custody of the minor children.

¶4

Before the learned Master, the petitioner/father has produced all evidence and marked all the documents. The petitioner/father has not been cross examined by the respondent/mother before the learned Master. Hence the matter was adjourned to 07.03.20022 by the learned Master. On 07.03.2022 also, there was no representation on both sides.

¶5

The respondent/mother is hereby set ex-parte.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

¶7

materials available on record.

¶8

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

¶9

1/3

¶10

Before the learned Master, the petitioner/father has been examined as

¶11

P.W.1 and even documents were also marked. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/mother, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The petitioner is the father and respondent is the mother of minor children.

¶12

Even as the father is the natural guardian to the minor children, this Court need not declare once again the father as a guardian. However, regarding the custody of the minor children, since the respondent/mother has not cross examined and challenged the chief examination, denying the documents which were marked before the learned Master and the respondent/mother has not proved that the petitioner/father was acting against the interest of the minors and the petitioner is none other than the father, who is also the natural guardian of the minor children, the Original Petition is allowed. The respondent/mother is directed to hand over the children to the petitioner within a week from today. Consequently, connected applications are closed. No costs.

¶13

22.03.2022

¶14

mfa

¶15

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

2/3

P.VELMURUGAN.,J

mfa

O.P.No.229 of 2021 and A.Nos.1082, 1083 & 1084 of 2021

¶20

22.03.2022

¶21

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

¶22

3/3

G.Santhosh v. N.Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Santhosh v. N.Dhanalakshmi

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

Kiran Kumar Chava alias Kiran Chava Vs Usha Kiran Anne

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Ca v Venkata Sivakumar

Champi Devi Jverilalji Kawad Vs Nil

Raj Chordia Vs The Research Foundation for Jainology

The Research Foundation for Jainology and 3 others Vs Raj Chordia alias K.Manohar Raajh Chordia and 17 others

A.S.Rajkumar Vs a.S.Ashok Kumar