Dismissed¶48

R. Varadharaaj v. Dr.Vinu Joseph

Madras HC26 Feb 2026CRL MP(MD)/1669/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

habeas corpus; child custody; minor child; visitation rights; interim visitation arrangement; Legal Services Authority Buildings Madurai District Court Complex; Family Court Madurai; G.W.O.P.No.58 of 2026; guardianship/custody petition; maternal grandparents; mother employed in U.S.A.; divorce proceedings pending in U.S.A.; permission for removal of child from Madurai jurisdiction; modification of High Court order; Article 226 Constitution of India; Crl.M.P.(MD); Madras High Court Madurai Bench; welfare of the child; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking modification dismissed; previously granted visitation rights to continue with any further modification to be sought before the Family Court, Madurai; entire records of G.W.O.P.No. 58 of 2026 to be forwarded to the mother of the child; no costs awarded. ¶48

R. Varadharaaj Vs Dr.Vinu Joseph — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the observation in Paragraph No.7 of the order dated 27.11.2025 in H.C.P.(MD).No.1396 of 2025 — that removal of the child from the Madurai jurisdiction requires permission of the Family Court at Madurai — should be modified. +2 more

¶22

Court's answer

All matters relating to the custody of the child can be agitated before the Family Court at Madurai; the papers relating to the divorce Petition and other records may also be presented before that Court, which shall take a considered decision appreciating all records, keeping in mind the welfare of the child.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The direction that the child, if removed, may be removed only on obtaining permission from the Family Court at Madurai is upheld, as it is only in the interest of the child and ensures the child is not removed during the pendency of G.W.O.P.No.58 of 2026.

¶41

Key takeaways

The proceedings relating to custody in Madurai would not have any bearing on the divorce proceedings at U.S.A.ratio¶32
The visitation rights already granted shall continue, and any modification required thereto may be sought before the Family Court at Madurai.ratio¶49
A direction is given to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Habeas Corpus Petition to forward the entire records relating to G.W.O.P.No. 58 of 2026 to the mother of the child.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1669 of 2026 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Coram: C.V. Karthikeyan & R. Vijayakumar, JJ.; decided 26-02-2026), filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by R. Varadharaaj and Jothi Varadharaaj, sought modification of Paragraph 7 of the order dated 27.11.2025 in H.C.P.(MD).No.1396 of 2025, which had arranged interim visitation to the minor child at the Legal Services Authority Buildings, Madurai District Court Complex on first and third Saturdays (11.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m.) and directed that removal of the child from the Madurai jurisdiction requires permission of the Family Court, Madurai, where custody case G.W.O.P.No.58 of 2026 is pending. Petitioners' grievances were that Indian proceedings might affect divorce proceedings pending before a Court in the U.S.A., and that the G.W.O.P. papers had not been served on the child's mother, who is employed in the U.S.A. Held: all custody matters can be agitated before the Family Court, Madurai, which shall decide on all records including divorce-petition papers, keeping the child's welfare in mind; the permission-from-Family-Court direction stands as it protects the child during pendency of the G.W.O.P.; custody proceedings would not bear upon the U.S. divorce proceedings; and the G.W.O.P. records are to be forwarded to the mother. Visitation rights already granted shall continue, further changes being a matter for the Family Court. Petition dismissed; no costs.

¶1

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1669 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 26-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1669 of 2026 in H.C.P.(MD).No.1396 of 2025

¶9

1.R.Varadharaaj 2.Jothi Varadharaaj

¶10

..Petitioners(s)

¶11

Vs 1.Dr.Vinu Joseph 2.State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Superintendent of Police Madurai District, Alagakarkovil Main Road, Madurai – 625 002.

¶12

3.Inspector of Police, C2 Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Near Roundtana, Tirupparankunram Road, Palanganatham, Madurai – 625 003. 4.Ajantha Varadharaaj

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to modify the order made in H.C.P.(MD).No.1396 of 2025 dated 27.11.2025 in Paragraph 7 that “ If the child is to be removed from the jurisdiction within Madurai, necessary permission may be obtained from the Family Court at

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1669 of 2026

¶18

Madurai, where the custody case is now pending.. .”

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Haja Mohideen A. For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Sricharan Rangarajan Senior Counsel For M/s.N.S.Amogh Simha Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor (For R2 & R3)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)

¶22

The present petition has been filed, seeking modification of an observation made in the order dated 27.11.2025 in Paragraph No.7, which is as follows:

¶23

“7. We tentatively propose that he can visit the child at the Legal Services Authority Buildings at Madurai District Court Complex every first and third Saturdays between 11.00 a.m. and 03.00 p.m., along with his parents and we are confident that the fourth and fifth respondents would have no objection for this interim arrangement. If the child is to be removed from the jurisdiction within Madurai, necessary permission may be obtained from the Family Court at Madurai, where the custody case is now pending. The said request may be adjudicated on merits by the said Court.”

¶24

The Habeas Corpus Petition came up for consideration before us on

¶25

27.11.2025 and on that date, the petition has been closed. The father of the

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1669 of 2026

¶29

minor child was the petitioner therein. The child was under the custody of her maternal grand parents, who are residing at Madurai. The mother of the child is employed in the U.S.A and was unable to physically present at Madurai or in India. There is also a proceeding pending between the parties with respect to the custody of the child. G.W.O.P.No.58 of 2026 had been filed and is now pending before the Special Judge for Family Court at Madurai.

¶30

It is the grievance of the petitioners herein that since divorce

¶31

proceedings are pending before the Court at U.S.A., proceedings here may affect the outcome of those proceedings.

¶32

We are confident that the proceedings relating to custody would not

¶33

have any bearing on the divorce proceedings at U.S.A.

¶34

There is another grievance expressed by the petitioners that the papers

¶35

in the G.W.O.P had not been served. The mother of the child appeared through Video conferencing and we requested her to forward her e-mail, so that the entire records in the GWOP may be forwarded her. Accordingly, the e-mail viz., [email protected] had been forwarded by her in the Chat Box.

¶36

A direction is given to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the

¶37

Page 3 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1669 of 2026

¶40

Habeas Corpus Petition to forward the entire records relating to G.W.O.P.No. 58 of 2026 to the mother of the child.

¶41

We hold that all matters relating to the custody could be agitated before the Family Court at Madurai. We would also permit the papers relating to the divorce Petition and other records to be presented before the Family Court, which Court shall take a considered decision on appreciation of all records filed of course, keeping in mind the welfare of the child. The direction given by us that the child, if removed, should be done so only on obtaining a permission from the Family Court at Madurai is only in the interest of the child, to ensure that the child is not removed during the pendency of the G.W.O.P.No.58 of 2026.

¶42

It is to be noted that the counsel, who represented on behalf of the petitioners herein had not even filed vakalat before the Family Court. We would request that he may do so and take steps to file counter immediately.

¶43

In view of the fact that he has not even entered appearance, it is not possible to fix any time limit for disposal of G.W.O.P.No.58 of 2026. However, we would urge the Family Court, Madurai, to bestow special interest on this matter and ensure that if pleadings are completed and if the parties co-operate,

¶44

Page 4 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.1669 of 2026

¶47

the matter may be disposed of without unnecessary adjournments.

¶48

This petition, seeking modification stands dismissed. The visitation

¶49

rights, which we had already granted shall continue and any modification required on the same may be sought before the Family Court, at Madurai. No costs.

¶50

(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.) 26-02-2026

¶51

kak

¶52

¶53