Partly allowed

R.Lakshmi Narasimhan v. T.P.Vasanth

Madras HC21 Oct 2024OSA/230/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras modified a family court order granting joint custody of a minor child to the biological mother and her step-father. The appeal, filed by the father, was allowed to restrict custody to the biological mother alone, distinguishing the step-father from the permanent guardian.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order awarding joint custody to the step-father was modified to grant sole custody to the biological mother.

R.Lakshmi Narasimhan Vs T.P.Vasanth — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

O.S.A. No.230 of 2020

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶7

O.S.A.No.230 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.11600 of 2020

¶8

R. Lakshmi Narasimhan .. Appellant

¶9

vs.

¶10

T.P.Vasanth

¶11

Mrs. Sumeeta .. Respondents

¶12

Memorandum of Grounds of Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Rule 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Judgment and Decree passed in OP No.797 of 2017 dated 26.05.2020 on the file of this Court, granting joint custody of the Minor Child to the respondents herein and also Monopoly right to the mother/2^nd respondent alone to give consent and instructions to the statutory authorities have to be set aside in view of the adoption being not valid.

¶13

For Appellant :: Mr.M.Arunachalam For Respondents :: Mr.G.Surya Narayanan

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

O.S.A. No.230 of 2020

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.)

¶19

This appeal is against the Judgment and Decree passed in OP No.797 of 2017 dated 26.05.2020.

¶20

2. The order of the learned Single Judge holding that the Biological mother/ ex-wife of the appellant i.e., the 2^nd respondent shall be entitled to joint custody of the minor child Saatvika along with the step-father/ 1^st respondent subject to the condition that the respondents shall not be divorced or separated, is under challenge.

¶21

3. After hearing the parties at length, this Court is of the view that from the settlement agreed between the appellant and the 2^nd respondent for divorce before the impugned order and the subsequent events alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the only genuine grievance of the appellant appears to be that while passing the impugned order the learned Single Judge has held that the 2^nd respondent is entitled to joint custody of the minor child Saatvika along with the 1^st respondent, who is only the step-father of the minor.

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

O.S.A. No.230 of 2020

¶25

4. It is admitted that the minor is the only daughter of the appellant and the 2^nd respondent. Before the Family Court the appellant and the 2^nd respondent reached an agreement dated 27.11.2012 and as per the agreement the permanent custody of the minor daughter was to remain with the 2^nd respondent / wife who was held to be the permanent guardian of the minor daughter Saatvika. From the order impugned, this Court finds that no right was given to the 1^st respondent, however, the relief of adoption was refused only to protect the interest of the minor so that the minor will not lose her right as a daughter of her natural father.

¶26

5. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the direction that the 2^nd respondent is entitled to joint custody of the minor along with the step-father of the child/ 1^st respondent is unwarranted, as the appellant has only agreed that the custody might be with the mother and not with any one else.

¶27

6. It is in the said circumstance, the order impugned in this appeal is modified, accordingly, paragraph No.30 clause (i) will read as follows:-

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

O.S.A. No.230 of 2020

¶31

“(i) The biological mother viz., the 2^nd

¶32

respondent in the OP shall be entitled to the custody of

¶33

the minor child Saatvika.”

¶34

7. Accordingly, this Original Side Appeal is disposed of with the above

¶35

modification. The other portion of the order will be intact. No costs.

¶36

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

(S.S.S.R., J.) (A.D.M.C., J.) 21.10.2024

¶38

dsa Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

O.S.A. No.230 of 2020 S.S.SUNDAR, J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶42

dsa

¶43

O.S.A.No.230 of 2020

¶44

21.10.2024

¶45

5/5

¶46

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

R.Lakshmi Narasimhan v. T.P.Vasanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Lakshmi Narasimhan v. T.P.Vasanth

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

Metalman Auto Pvt.Ltd Vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

K.Muthu Vs T.Amudan Antony (Deceased), 1.K.Devi

A.Rajasekar Vs N.Kothai

T.v.Amshalingam Vs the District Collector

Rani Raju Vs the Inspector General of Registration

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Vs M.K. Ganesan