Dismissed¶33

S.Balasubramanian v. Sadhana

Madras HC12 Nov 2025A/4824/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim/daily video-call visitation refused; repeat identical interlocutory application discouraged; parties directed to trial. Keywords: Madras High Court; A No. 4824 of 2025; O.P.No.206 of 2024; Tr.C.M.P.No.324 of 2024; A.No.1928 of 2024; twin minor daughters B.Aarthi and B.Bhavana aged 3 years; custody with mother/respondent; video calling one hour each day; visitation order dated 04.04.2024; earlier application closed 07.02.2025; prolonging the issue; evidence before learned Master 27.11.2025; P. Dhanabal, J.; decided 12-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

The two twin minor children, aged about 3 years, would find it difficult to have conversation over phone and to sit in one place for one hour to interact with their father through video calling. ¶32

S.Balasubramanian Vs Sadhana — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A No. 4824 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

A No. 4824 of 2025 in

¶7

O.P.No.206 of 2024

¶8

S.Balasubramanian S/o.B.Subramanian, No.A1-202, 2nd Floor, Perumbakkam, Chennai - 600 100.

¶9

..Applicant(s)

¶10

¶11

Sadhana D/o.N.Sundaresan, Flat No.B1, Sri Kripa Apartment, Ganapathy Layout, KK Pudur, Giri Nagar, Coimbatore - 641 038.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

To permit the Petitioner/Applicant to interact with his two minor daughters, namely, B.Aarthi and B.Bhavana aged 3 years, who are presently in the custody of the Respondent, through video calling for a duration of 1 hour each day, until the final disposal of the Original Petition.

¶14

For Applicant(s): Ms.R.Divya for M/s.Hs Law Firm For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Babu

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

A No. 4824 of 2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The applicant/husband has filed this application seeking to permit him to interact with his two minor daughters, namely, B.Aarthi and B.Bhavana, aged about 3 years, through video calling for a duration of 1 hour each day, till the disposal of the main OP.

¶20

According to the applicant/husband, he is the father of the minor children and the respondent is the wife. The marriage was solemnized between the applicant and the respondent on 25.01.2021 and out of the said wedlock, the aforesaid two twin children born to them on 30.03.2022. Due to misunderstanding between them, the respondent/wife is residing now at Coimbatore. In the transfer petition filed by the respondent/wife, visitation rights was ordered by this Court on 04.04.2024 permitting the applicant/husband to see his children every 2^nd and 4^th Sundays of every month between 10 a.m. and 12 noon. The applicant being the father of the minor children is having every right to see his children through video calling every day. Therefore, he has filed this application with a prayer stated supra.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

A No. 4824 of 2025

¶24

The learned counsel for the applicant/husband would submits that in order to settle the issue, although the applicant/husband visited the residence of the respondent/wife more than 5/6 times, he was not given proper respect, and in one occasion, he was abused by the respondent's father.

¶25

The respondent/wife has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of this application. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife would submit that seeking a similar relief as that of the present application, the applicant/husband had already filed an application in A.No.1928 of 2024 and this Court, vide its order dated 07.02.2025, closed the said application, directing the parties to go for trial. However, without complying with the said direction, the application/husband has once again filed a similar application seeking the very same relief. Therefore, such a prayer cannot be entertained by this Court.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

It is seen from the records that this Court, vide its order dated 04.04.2024, passed in Tr.C.M.P.No.324 of 2024, has already granted visitation

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

A No. 4824 of 2025

¶31

rights in favour of the applicant/husband permitting him to interact with his minor

¶32

children on every 2^nd and 4^th Saturdays of every month between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. It is an admitted fact that the two twin children are aged about 3 years and they are under the care and custody of the respondent/wife. It is also admitted fact that the applicant/husband has already filed a similar application seeking the very same relief as that of the present application and this Court, vide its order dated 07.02.2025 passed in A.No.1928 of 2024, closed the said application, relegating the parties to go for trial. Therefore, without going for trial, filing of the present application seeking the very same relief is nothing but to prolong the issue on hand. It is also to be noted that the two twin minor children are aged about 3 years and therefore, it is difficult for them to have conversation over phone and to sit in one place for one hour to have an interaction with their father through video calling.

¶33

In fine, for the reasons stated above, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Post the main OP for recording evidence before the learned Master on 27.11.2025.

¶34

12-11-2025

¶35

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶36

RKM

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

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

¶39

A No. 4824 of 2025