Dismissed¶36

A. Roja Priyadharshini v. K. Madhan Kumar

Madras HC17 Mar 2025CRP/554/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC, C.R.P.No.554 of 2025 (Ms. Justice P.T. Asha, 17/3/2025): Article 227 revision by mother against Family Court, Tiruvannamalai order in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in F.C.O.P.No.23 of 2022 granting father employed in Singapore monthly visitation (first Saturday, 11.00 a.m.-01.00 p.m., Mediation Centre) of the two minor children; no serious allegation or objection shown; custody not granted, visitation upheld; CRP dismissed, no costs; connected M.P. closed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. ¶36

A. Roja Priyadharshini Vs K. Madhan Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P.No.554 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 17/3/2025

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

The Hon'ble Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

Civil Revision Petition No.554 of 2025

¶7

A. Roja Priyadharshini ... Petitioner Vs

¶8

K. Madhan Kumar ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the I.A.No.3 of 2023 in F.C.O.P.No.23 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court Judge at Tiruvannamalai.

¶10

For petitioner ... Ms.M.Udhayavani

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Challenging the order passed by the learned Family Judge, Tiruvannamalai, permitting the respondent husband to visit the minor children at the Mediation Centre, Tiruvannamalai on the first Saturday of

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

C.R.P.No.554 of 2025

¶17

every month between 11.00 a.m., and 01.00 p.m., the petitioner/ respondent's wife is before this Court.

¶18

Heard Ms.M.Udhayavani, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

The respondent had married the petitioner, as per the Hindu rites and customs on 30/8/2012 and two children, viz., Durgahasini and Gokulakrishna were born to them on 10/4/2013 and 29/4/2019, respectively.

¶20

The respondent had gone to Singapore on 13/6/2016 for eking out his livelihood and would visit India once in a year. He has been taking care of the petitioner and children.

¶21

It is the case of the respondent that from July 2021, the petitioner had refused to speak to him and when he had questioned this attitude, she had candidly informed him that she did not want to continue her matrimonial relationship with him.

¶22

The petitioner herein had given a false complaint against the respondent's parents and on 26/1/2022, when he had come down to India,

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.No.554 of 2025

¶26

the petitioner had refused to speak to him and also blocked his number in her mobile. When he went to visit the children, they were not permitted to see him. The Police held an enquiry, wherein, the petitioner had refused to come and live with the respondent and she had also prevented the respondent from seeing the children. Therefore, the respondent has come forward for custody of his children and for an interim custody.

¶27

Counter was filed by the petitioner herein in F.C.O.P. She would submit that in the year 2018, the respondent came from Singapore to India and they lived happily together at Natrampalli Village. During this period, the respondent was constantly abusing the petitioner and she would further contend that the respondent was giving only a sum of Rs.24,000/- as maintenance to his daughter alone. These amounts are being utilised for discharge of the debt borrowed by the respondent. Ultimately, the learned Judge has granted visitation right to the respondent. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come forward with the instant Civil Revision Petition.

¶28

The petitioner herein has not made out any serious allegation

¶29

against the husband seeking dismissal of the application. The petitioner

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

C.R.P.No.554 of 2025

P.T.ASHA,J

mvs.

would question the right of the custody, particularly when the respondent is living abroad and hence, custody cannot be given to him. The learned Judge has also not granted custody, however, permitted the visitation rights on the first Saturday of every month. The petitioner has not given any serious objection about the visitation rights and therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree.

¶36

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶37

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶38

17/3/2025

¶39

mvs.

¶40

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To 1. The Family Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

¶41

C.R.P.No.554 of 2025

¶42

4/4

¶43

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the learned Family Judge, Tiruvannamalai in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in F.C.O.P.No.23 of 2022 permitting the respondent husband to visit the minor children at the Mediation Centre, Tiruvannamalai on the first Saturday of every month between 11.00 a.m., and 01.00 p.m.¶13
Family Court Judge, Tiruvannamalai
Prior proceeding
The respondent married the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs on 30/8/2012; two children, Durgahasini and Gokulakrishna, were born on 10/4/2013 and 29/4/2019 respectively.¶19
Prior proceeding
The respondent went to Singapore on 13/6/2016 for his livelihood, visiting India once a year, and had been taking care of the petitioner and children.¶20
Prior proceeding
Per the respondent, from July 2021 the petitioner refused to speak to him and, on being questioned, indicated she did not want to continue the matrimonial relationship.¶21
Prior proceeding
The petitioner had given a complaint against the respondent's parents; on 26/1/2022, when the respondent came down to India, she refused to speak to him (continued at ¶26).¶22
Prior proceeding
The petitioner refused to speak to the respondent, blocked his number, and did not permit him to see the children when he visited.¶26
Prior proceeding
The Police held an enquiry, in which the petitioner refused to come and live with the respondent and also prevented him from seeing the children.¶26
Prior proceeding
Consequently, the respondent applied to the Family Court for custody of his children and for interim custody.¶26
Prior proceeding
Counter was filed by the petitioner in the F.C.O.P.; she stated that in 2018 the couple lived together at Natrampalli Village.¶27
Prior proceeding
In her counter the petitioner further contended that the respondent was paying only Rs.24,000/- as maintenance, and that towards the daughter alone.¶27
Prior proceeding
The learned Judge granted visitation rights to the respondent; aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.¶27
Prior proceeding
Terms of the impugned visitation: first Saturday of every month between 11.00 a.m., and 01.00 p.m.; the petitioner, the respondent's wife, is before this Court challenging it.¶17

A. Roja Priyadharshini v. K. Madhan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Roja Priyadharshini v. K. Madhan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Padmavathy Vs Neelakandan

Anbazhagan Vs Saravanan

M.Visithra Vs M.Surender @ Harisurender

Gomathi Vs Jayavignesh

B. Indhumathi Vs D. Ilakkiyaraj

Gowtham Vs Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.