Dismissed

M.Sherin Jahan v. M.Masood Khan

Madras HC8 Aug 2024CMA(MD)/720/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court dismissed two appeals challenging the appointment of a father as natural guardian and visitation directions for a minor. The Court held the appointment accords with Muslim law as the mother acquiesced, and the visitation rights were lawful, though the child had since attained majority.

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M.Sherin Jahan Vs M.Masood Khan — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 08.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009

¶6

and C.M.P(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2009

¶7

C.M.A.(MD)No.720 of 2009

¶8

M.Sherin Jahan ..Appellant/Respondent Vs. M.Marood Khan ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶9

Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, to set aside the order dated 30.06.2009 made in G.W.O.P.No.226 of 2007, on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli .

¶10

For Appellant : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

¶11

C.M.A.(MD)No.825 of 2009

¶12

M.Marood Khan ..Appellant/Respondent

¶13

Vs.

¶14

M.Sherin Jahan ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶15

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Prayer

¶17

C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009

¶18

Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, against the order dated 30.06.2009 passed in I.A. No.159 in made in G.W.O.P.No.226 of 2007, on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli .

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents : No appearance

¶20

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶21

Since the appeals are arising out of one and the same order both the appeals are taken up together.

¶22

2.The appellant in CMA(MD) No.825 of 2009, who is the father of the minor child, filed GWOP No.226 of 2007 before the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli for a direction to appoint him as guardian of the minor child. By the order dated 30.06.2009, the father was appointed as natural guardian. While doing so, the learned Judge had relied upon the evidence of the mother, namely, the appellant in CMA(MD)No. 720 of 2009, where she stated that she had no objection if the father/husband is appointed as natural guardian.

¶23

Pending the petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, the wife had filed I.A. No.159 of 2008 for a direction to the

¶24

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009

¶26

father/husband to hand over custody of the minor child. The said petition was originally decided on 04.11.2008 and thereafter pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 4748/2009 the case was re-opened and after hearing the parties, the trial Court found that the custody cannot be handed over to the wife/mother. However the trial Court had directed the husband to permit the mother to visit the minor child on all Sundays and on the child birthday and on all festival days.

¶27

The mother/wife aggrieved by the order passed in GWOP No.226 of 2007 appointing the father/husband as natural guardian, has preferred CMA(MD) No. 720 of 2009.

¶28

The father/husband aggrieved by the direction permitting the mother/wife to see the minor child in I.A.No.159/2008 in GWOP No. 226 of 2007, has filed CMA(MD) No. 825 of 2009.

¶29

Since the mother/wife was represented by the learned Counsel who has since been elevated as a Judge of this Court, notice was sent to the mother/wife. However, the same was returned with an endorsement that she was not residing in the said address.

¶30

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009

¶32

The learned counsel further submitted that the child who is

¶33

under the custody of the father/husband had now attained majority and nothing survives for further adjudication.

¶34

This Court perused the impugned order passed in both the

¶35

appeals.

¶36

The order impugned in CMA(MD) No. 720 of 2009, as stated earlier, is the order appointing the father/husband as natural guardian. The said order has been passed only on the ground that the father/husband is the natural guardian of the minor child as per Muslim personal law. The mother/wife had deposed that she had no objection if the father is appointed as natural guardian. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli is in accordance with law and no interference is called for.

¶37

That apart, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the father/husband the child has now attained majority and the whole exercise is academic.

¶38

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009

¶40

As regards the appeal filed by the father/husband challenging the direction permitting visitation by the mother/wife this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the said order as the mother/wife would be entitled to visitation rights and therefore CMA(MD)No.825 of 2009 also deserves to be dismissed.

¶41

In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶42

08.08.2024

¶43

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aav

¶44

To:

¶45

The I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli .

¶46

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009

¶50

SUNDER MOHAN,J.

¶51

aav

¶52

C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009

¶53

08.08.2024

¶54

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Sherin Jahan v. M.Masood Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sherin Jahan v. M.Masood Khan

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. Subramanian Vs G.P.Loganathan

Ponnusastha Vs Mathaiyan

The Oriental Insurance Company Vs Krishnathevar

A.Anbalagan Vs the Inspector General of

P.Lakshmanan Vs the Inspector General of

Sarathkumar Vs G.Nagarani