Disposed

Dr.R.Sudhakar v. T. Kanimozhi

Madras HC6 Aug 2024CRP/2734/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A father sought weekend custody of his two minor children via an interim application before the Family Court, Erode; the trial court granted supervised visitation instead. On revision, the High Court upheld visitation, granting visits on first and third Saturdays at specified times, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Visitation rights: visits between 3.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on the third Saturday, plus first-Saturday visit at Family Court, Erode; no costs.

Dr.R.Sudhakar Vs T. Kanimozhi — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R..P.No.2734 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

C.R.P.No.2734 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.16859 of 2023

¶7

Dr.R.Sudhakar ...Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

T.Kanimozhi ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned Fair Order and Decreetal Order in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in G.W.O.P.No.77 of 2022 dated 28.06.2023 on the file of Family Court, Erode.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar For Respondent : Mr.D.Selvaraju

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the Order passed in I.A.No.03 of 2022 in G.W.O.P.No.77 of 2022 dated 28.06.2023 on the file of the Family Court, Erode. The interim application is filed under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with 151

¶14

Page No.1/5

¶15

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

¶16

C.R..P.No.2734 of 2023

¶17

of the Civil Procedure Code praying the Trial Court to permit the petitioner to keep the minor children with him for two days, i.e. on Saturday and Sunday.

¶18

The petitioner has averred in the petition that, as the petitioner is working in the Government Hospital, everyday he used to visit the children. However, the respondent was raising issue for unnecessary reasons. Therefore, the petitioner had a difference of opinion with the respondent. The respondent without any intimation to the petitioner, took the children and went to her mother's house on 10.01.2021. When the petitioner went to the respondent's mother house and told the respondent to bring the children to his residence, no useful purpose was served. The respondent did not bring the children to the Court. Hence, he filed the above said petition before the Family Court, Erode.

¶19

The respondent counteracted by filing her counter stating that in March 2021, when the respondent was pursuing MBBS course, the petitioner had taken away both the children without her consent. Hence, she filed a Writ Petition in H.C.P.No.1507 of 2021 and an Order was passed to the effect that the first child to be handed over to the petitioner and on the same day, he himself brought the child stating that he was not

¶20

Page No.2/5

¶21

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

¶22

C.R..P.No.2734 of 2023

¶23

in a position to look after the child and handed over the child to her and this petition is not maintainable. The learned Trial Judge after hearing both sides, upon consideration has ordered as follows:

¶24

“vjpu;kDjhuu; jug;gpy; kDjhuu; ,uz;L ikdu; FHe;ijfis jdJ bghWg;gpy; miHj;Jr; brd;why; mtu;ifs ey;y Kiwapy; guhkupf;f jtWtnjhL. jdJ kUj;Jt gzp fhuzkhf kUj;Jtkidapnyna ,ut[ neu gzp bra;a ntz;oa N:H;epiy ,Ug;gjhYk; FHe;ijfis guhkupf;ff;Toa bghWika[k;. jd;ika[k;. md;g[k; kDjhuUf;F ,y;iy vd;gjhYk;. kDjhuu; Kul;L RghtKk;. rl;lj;ij kjpf;fhj eltof;ifia bfhz;ltu; vd;gjhYk; kDjhuu; trk; FHe;ijfis xg;gilj;jhy; FHe;ijfspd; vjpu;fhyk; ghjpg;gnjhL. FHe;ijfspd; capUf;Fk; Mgj;J Vw;gLk; vd;Wk;. FHe;ijfis ePjpkd;wj;jpy; itj;J ghu;itapl Ml;nrgizapy;iy vd;Wk; Twpa[s;shu;/”

¶25

As the petitioner is working as a Doctor and when he was given

¶26

the interim custody of one child, he himself handed over the child on the same day at the office of the petitioner's advocate. Considering all the

¶27

circumstances, an Order permitting the petitioner to visit the children between 3.30 p.m to 5.00 p.m on the third Saturday is granted. In the given circumstances, in addition to that the petitioner is permitted to visit

¶28

Page No.3/5

¶29

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

¶30

C.R..P.No.2734 of 2023

¶31

the child on the first Saturday between 3.30 p.m to 5.00 p.m at the Family Court, Erode. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

¶32

06.08.2024

¶33

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No mac

¶34

Page No.4/5

¶35

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

¶36

C.R..P.No.2734 of 2023

¶37

R.KALAIMATHI, J. mac

¶38

C.R.P.No.2734 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.16859 of 2023

¶39

06.08.2024

¶40

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

¶41

Page No.5/5

Dr.R.Sudhakar v. T. Kanimozhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.R.Sudhakar v. T. Kanimozhi

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.Anbazhagan, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Narayanasamy Vs the Additional Registrar of

Thiru.N.Ramalingam, M/57 Years Vs K.Arulazhagan

Rukkumani Vs Sadayappan

Devandran Vs Chinnaraj

Ayyammal Vs Kannupaiyan @ Arthanari