Allowed

S.B. Ramya,D/O.T.R.Balaji, v. S.Suthar Sunjay

Madras HC17 Apr 2024CMA(MD)/62/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal challenging visitation rights granted to the respondent-father, the High Court modified the trial court order. Finding the respondent remarried and uninterested in the children made born to the appellant, the appeal was allowed to set aside the visitation rights.

What did the court decide?

The trial court order granting visitation rights to the respondent was modified to set aside said rights; connected pending petition closed.

S.B. Ramya,D/O.T.R.Balaji, Vs S.Suthar Sunjay — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A(MD)No.62 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶6

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

¶7

C.M.A(MD)No. 62 of 2019 and CMP(MD)No.694 of 2019

¶8

Dr.S.B.Ramya

¶9

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Dr.S.Suthar Sanjay

¶12

... Respondent/Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Court Act, to set-aside the order in H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2018 dated 20.09.2018 on the file of the Family Court, Nagercoil to an extent of

¶14

Visitation alone as by terms No.4 and 5 of the common judgment.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior Counsel For Respondents : Mr.R.Krishnan

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

[Judgment was made by N.SESHASAYEE, J. ]

¶18

The respondent herein had filed H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the

¶19

Family Court, Kanyakumari District, for dissolution of his marriage with

¶20

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

¶21

Page No.1 of 5

¶22

C.M.A(MD)No.62 of 2019

¶23

the appellant herein. The trial Court vide its order dated 20.09.2018, had dissolved the marriage, but granted visitation rights to the respondent vis-a-vis his two children born to him through the appellant. It was further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month. That part of the order granting visitation rights to the respondent herein is under challenge in this appeal.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on instructions, submitted that the respondent had married another woman and begotten children through such marriage. He also circulated a photograph of the respondent with his second wife.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondent informs the Court that while he could not contact his client directly, he had very reliable information from a close relative of the respondent that the respondent had since re-married.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the date of the impugned order the respondent had never tried to visit the children and now that he is re-married, he may not be interested in visiting the

¶27

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

¶28

Page No.2 of 5

¶29

C.M.A(MD)No.62 of 2019

¶30

children.

¶31

Taking the facts which have subsequently developed, this Court does not consider that it would be appropriate to sustain the right of visitation to the father, who appears not to be interested in visiting the children born to him through the appellant.

¶32

In view of the same, this appeal is allowed and the order of the trial court in H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

(N.S.S., J.) (P.V.M., J.) 17.04.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No CM

¶34

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

¶35

Page No.3 of 5

¶36

C.M.A(MD)No.62 of 2019

¶37

To,

¶38

The Family Court, Nagercoil

¶39

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

¶40

Page No.4 of 5

¶41

C.M.A(MD)No.62 of 2019

¶42

N.SESHASAYEE, J. and P.VADAMALAI, J.

¶43

¶44

Judgment MADE IN C.M.A(MD)No. 62 of 2019 and CMP(MD)No.694 of 2019

¶45

17.04.2024

¶46

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

¶47

Page No.5 of 5

S.B. Ramya,D/O.T.R.Balaji, v. S.Suthar Sunjay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.B. Ramya,D/O.T.R.Balaji, v. S.Suthar Sunjay

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

M/S.Pounvel Pandian & Co., Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

K.Anandaraj Vs Sasikala Devi

The Managing Director Vs M.Jesindal Mary

R.Pandian Vs the District Revenue Officer

Valarmathy Vs N.Yogambal

Chandrasekaran K Vs The Principal District Judge