S.Sakthivel v. Abirami Kalyanasundaram

Madras HC16 Apr 2025OSA/91/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC OSA 91/2025 closed as infructuous; Sakthivel (father/appellant) v. Abirami Kalyanasundaram; GWOP trial before learned Single Judge; custody/possession of minor child's passport; prior orders 29.03.2019 and 09.11.2021 assigned passport to father; passport expired, fresh passport issued; impugned fair and decreetal order 16.12.2024 in A.No.5406/2024 in O.P.860/2016; Clause 15 Letters Patent appeal; no costs; connected CMP 5302/2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

No conventional relief: the Original Side Appeal and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No. 5302 of 2025) were closed as infructuous, with no costs awarded, after recording that the appellant's contention regarding the two passport-possession orders is factually correct. ¶¶21

S.Sakthivel Vs Abirami Kalyanasundaram — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the observation in the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 that the withholding of the passport of the minor child by the appellant/father is illegal was warranted, given the prior orders dated 29.03.2019 and 09.11.2021 assigning possession of the passport to the father (stated as the appellant's sole grievance). +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

The appellant's statement is factually correct: on a perusal of the two orders dated 29.03.2019 and 09.11.2021, the father was indeed to hold possession of the passport; moreover, the passport had expired and a fresh passport had been issued.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

This Original Side Appeal is infructuous because the parties are appearing before the learned Single Judge in the trial in the GWOP.

¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C. Kumarappan), O.S.A.No. 91 of 2025 (S. Sakthivel v. Ms. Abirami Kalyanasundaram), decided 16.04.2025: Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.12.2024 in A.No. 5406 of 2024 in O.P.No. 860 of 2016. The Bench held the appeal infructuous as the parties are in trial before the learned Single Judge in the GWOP. Addressing the appellant's sole grievance - the impugned order's observation that the father's withholding of the minor child's passport is illegal - the Bench verified two earlier orders (29.03.2019 and 09.11.2021) requiring the father to hold possession of the passport, found the appellant's statement factually correct, and noted the passport had expired with a fresh one issued. Appeal and connected C.M.P.No. 5302 of 2025 closed; no costs.

¶1

O.S.A.No. 91 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

O.S.A.No. 91 of 2025 and C.M.P.No. 5302 of 2025

S.Sakthivel

.. Appellant

Ms. Abirami Kalyanasundaram .. Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.12.2024 made in A.No. 5406 of 2024 in O.P.No. 860 of 2016.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan for Mr.S.P.Vijayaragavan For Respondent : Mr.M.Aravind Subramanian, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Manoj JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

¶13

We have heard Mr. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for

¶14

the appellant and Mr.M.Aravind Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.S.Manoj, for the respondent.

¶15

1/2

¶16

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

¶17

O.S.A.No. 91 of 2025

¶18

DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.

¶19

In fact, this Original Side Appeal is infructuous seeing as the parties are appearing before the learned Single Judge in the trial in the GWOP.

¶20

Learned counsel would submit that the sole grievance of the appellant relates to the observation in impugned order dated 16.12.2024 to the effect that the withholding of the passport of the minor child by the appellant / father is illegal. He draws our attention to two orders, one dated 29.03.2019 and another dated 09.11.2021, as per which the father was to hold possession of the passport. On a perusal of the above two orders, we find his statement to be factually correct. The passport had, at any rate, expired and a fresh passport also issued.

¶21