Allowed

Arockiya Cletus Floria v. Daniel

Madras HC15 Sept 2023OP/250/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an original petition filed by the mother for permanent custody and guardianship of her two minor children. Relying on the children's welfare, bonding with the mother, and the father's failure to justify his stand, the Court appointed the petitioner as guardian and decreed permanent custody in her favor.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner appointed as legal guardian; permanent custody of minor children D.Kelvin Costner and D.Peppin granted to the petitioner.

Arockiya Cletus Floria Vs Daniel — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.09.2023

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶5

O.P.No.250 of 2023

¶6

Arockiya Cletus Floria ... Petitioner

Vs.

Daniel

... Respondent

Prayer:- This Petition is filed under Sections 3,7 to 10 & 25 of Guardian & Wards Act r/w. Order XXI Rule 2 and 3 of the Original Side Rules, to grant permanent custody of the minor children (i) D.Kelvin Costner, 11 years old born on 21.02.2012 and (ii) D.Peppin, aged 7 years born on 03.09.2016 to the petitioner and to appoint the petitioner as a legal guardian of the person of the minor children.

¶11

For Petitioner : TKS.Bharathy Shri ORDER

¶12

This Original Petition has been filed seeking permanent custody of the minor children (i) D.Kelvin Costner, 11 years old born on 21.02.2012 and (ii)

¶13

D.Peppin, aged 7 years born on 03.09.2016 to the petitioner and to appoint the

¶14

petitioner as a legal guardian of the person of the minor children.

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

¶18

2. The petitioner is the mother of the minor children D.Kelvin Costner,

¶19

11 years old born on 21.02.2012 and D.Peppin, aged 7 years born on 03.09.2016. T he respondent is the father of the minor children. The minor children are in the custody of their mother who is the petitioner herein. Due to some misunderstanding between the couple, they got separated and thereafter, the children are with the petitioner only.

¶20

3. The petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and Exhibits P1 to P22 were

¶21

marked. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 would show that the petitioner and the respondent got married on 26.01.2011. From Exs.P3 & P4 birth certificates, it is seen that the minor children were born to the petitioner and the respondent on 21.02.2012 and 03.09.2016 respectively.

¶22

4. The petitioner has stated in her evidence that the children were ill-

¶23

treated by the respondent and they were even assaulted severely. The petitioner also produced the copy of the CSR for given a complaint in this regard to police and the same is marked as Ex.P7.

¶24

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

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

5. Despite the respondent received notice, he did not make his appearance and justify his stand by refuting the allegations made against him.

¶27

6. It is further alleged that the respondent had some other woman in his life and he deserted the petitioner and the children and stopped paying maintenance to her. In such situation, it is right on the part of the petitioner to file this Petition seeking to appoint herself as guardian of the minor children and seeking permanent custody of the minor children.

¶28

7. As the petitioner is also a working woman and she is capable of meeting out the expenses for upbringing the children to some extent. The children also feel comfortable with their mother. Even if the children may not be able to live with both of their parents, they are able to live atleast with one of their parents who is their mother. Since the petitioner's involvement and bonding with the children is seen to be better, I feel in the interest and welfare of the children, the petitioner should be appointed as guardian of the minor children and permanent custody of the minor children should be given to the

¶29

petitioner.

¶30

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

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

¶33

8. In the result, this Original Petition is allowed and the petitioner is

¶34

appointed as guardian of the minor children D.Kelvin Costner and D.Peppin

¶35

and permanent custody of the minor children is given to the petitioner.

¶36

15.09.2023

¶37

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No gsk

¶38

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

Page 4 of 5

R.N.MANJULA, J.

gsk

O.P.No.250 of 2023

¶43

15.09.2023

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 5

Arockiya Cletus Floria v. Daniel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arockiya Cletus Floria v. Daniel

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

S.Venkatesan and Another Vs No Respondent

V.Rabhu Vs H.Hemalatha and Another

K.Veerapathiran Vs No Respondent

Will of K.Nagaswamy Iyer Vs Lalitha Kuppuswamy

Cherran Institute of Health Sciences Vs Santhosh J

B.Vatchala Vs Sri Vidya Balachander and 9 others