Sangeetha Somu v. R.Thilakeswaran

Madras HC14 Nov 2025OP/621/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uncontested guardianship and custody petition under the Guardian and Wards Act (Sections 7, 10 and 25) — mother appointed guardian of the person of three minor children and granted custody, with the father's consent (memo filed; RW1 deposition of no objection); parents divorced in H.M.O.P. No.100 of 2018, Sub Court / Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu (decree on desertion; no appeal by either side); petitioner a Singapore citizen; Madras High Court, O.P. No.621 of 2023, P. Dhanabal J, order dated 14.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner appointed as 'Guardian' of the person of the three minor children (Dathathreya Thilakeswaran, Tihami Tarekant and Gaayanth Naji) and custody of the minor children given to the petitioner. ¶¶47

Sangeetha Somu Vs R.Thilakeswaran — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner appointed as 'Guardian' of the person of the three minor children (Dathathreya Thilakeswaran, Tihami Tarekant and Gaayanth Naji) and custody of the minor children given to the petitioner.

¶¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be appointed guardian of the person of her three minor children (Dathathreya Thilakeswaran, Tihami Tarekant and Gaayanth Naji) and granted their custody.

¶¶43

Court's answer

On a perusal of the evidence and records, the court found the parties are husband and wife and parents of three children, separated after matrimonial dispute, with the children with the petitioner, no adverse interest against the minors, and the respondent (RW1) deposing he had no objection; therefore, in the interest of the minor children, the petition has to be allowed.

¶¶43

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is appointed as 'Guardian' of the person of the minors (i) Dathathreya Thilakeswaran, (ii) Tihami Tarekant and (iii) Gaayanth Naji.

¶¶49

Key takeaways

The custody of the minor children is given to the petitioner.ratio¶¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P. Dhanabal, J.) allowed O.P. No.621 of 2023, filed under Sections 7, 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with Order XXI Rule 2 and 3 of the Original Side Rules and Clause XVII of Letters Patent Act, and (i) appointed the petitioner as 'Guardian' of the person of the minors Dathathreya Thilakeswaran, Tihami Tarekant and Gaayanth Naji, and (ii) gave custody of the minor children to the petitioner. The petitioner, stated to originally be a Singapore citizen, married the respondent as per Hindu rites on 15.02.2007; the respondent had filed H.M.O.P. No.100 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu, which was allowed on the ground of 'desertion' and dismissed on the ground of 'adultery', with no appeal preferred by either party. The respondent consented to the guardianship, filed a memo to that effect, and deposed as RW1 that he had no objection; the petitioner was examined as PW1 and marked Ex.P.1, a certified copy of the order in H.M.O.P. No.100 of 2018 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu (dated 05.03.2021). Held, in the interest of the minor children, the petition deserved to be allowed.

¶1

O.P. No.621 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.11.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

O.P. No.621 of 2023

¶7

Sangeetha Somu D/o. Somu Rajalingam …. Petitioner vs.

¶8

R. Thilakeswaran S/o. Rajakanthan ... Respondent.

¶9

PRAYER: The Original Petition has been filed under Sections 7, 10 and 25

¶10

of the Guardian and Wards Act read with Order XXI Rule 2 and 3 of Original

¶11

Side Rules and Clause XVII of Letters Patent Act praying to grant custody of

¶12

the minors to the petitioner and to appoint the petitioner as guardian of the

¶13

person of the minors viz., (i) Minor Dathathreya Thilakeswaran, (ii) Minor

¶14

Tihami Tarekant and (iii) Minor Gaayanth Naji.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Gouthaman For Respondent : Mr. Govi Ganesan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to grant custody

¶18

Page No.1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

O.P. No.621 of 2023 of minor children to the petitioner and to appoint her as a guardian of the

¶21

minor children.

¶22

According to the petitioner, her marriage was solemnized with the

¶23

respondent as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 15.02.2007 and was registered in India. Originally the petitioner is a Singapore citizen. Out of wedlock, there are three children to the petitioner and the respondent namely (1) Dathathreya, (2) Tihami Tarekant and 3) Gaayanth Naji. After marriage, there was matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. After marriage, the respondent resided at Singapore for his work purpose. From 2011, the respondent has not taken care of the petitioner and their children. From 2017,

¶24

the petitioner and her children are residing in India at Neelankarai. The petitioner is struggling and surviving with the support of her parents. The

¶25

petitioner came to know that the respondent had filed H.M.O.P. No.100 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Chengalpattu for divorce. No proper notice was served to the petitioner in the said H.M.O.P petition. The said divorce

¶26

petition was allowed on the ground of ‘desertion’ and dismissed the petition Page No.2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

O.P. No.621 of 2023

¶29

on the ground of ‘adultery’. Both the petitioner and the respondent have not

¶30

preferred any appeal as against the said order. For the welfare of the children,

¶31

the petitioner needs custody and guardianship of the children. She has no other adverse interest over the children. The respondent has also given his

¶32

consent to grant guardianship to the petitioner and to allow this petition in favour of the petitioner. The respondent has also filed a memo in this regard.

¶33

Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition to grant custody and to appoint

¶34

her as guardian of the minor children.

¶35

The case was posted for examination of witnesses. On the side of

¶36

the petitioner, PW1 was examined and Ex.P.1 was marked. On the side of

¶37

respondent, the respondent was examined as RW1.

¶38

This Court also perused the evidence and the entire records.

¶39

As per the evidence of PW1, she has narrated the petition averments. Page No.3 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

O.P. No.621 of 2023 The petitioner has produced the copy of her Aadhar Card, birth certificates of

¶42

her minor children and the copy of the divorce order passed in H.M.O.P. No.100 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.

¶43

On a perusal of the evidences and documents, it is clear that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and they are the parents of three children and there was some matrimonial dispute between the parties and the parties have now got separated. The children are currently residing with the petitioner in Singapore from their birth. The petitioner requested that for the well-being of the children, she has to be appointed as a 'Guardian' and custody of the children is also to be given to the petitioner. There is no any adverse interest for the petitioner against her minor children. The respondent also, in his evidence, deposed that he has no objection to allow this petition in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, in the interest of minor children, this petition has to be allowed.

¶44

Page No.4 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

O.P. No.621 of 2023

¶47