Usha Rani @ Bhuvaneshwari vs R.Chidambaram on 31 October, 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 31.10.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

C.M.A.(MD)No.651 of 2017
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.6772 of 2017

Usha Rani @ Bhuvaneshwari … Appellant

Vs.

R.Chidambaram … Respondent

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 47 of Guardians and Wards Act, to set
aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.04.2007 passed in G.O.P.No.36 of
2015 by the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.

!For Appellant : Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar
^For Respondents : Mr.R.Santhana Krishnan

:JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.The appellant herein married the respondent on 24.03.2008 at
Karaikudi. A male child Aswin Karthick was born on 04.11.2009. The marital
life came under strain. The marriage ended in divorce on 08.01.2013. The
child remained with the appellant herein. Seeking guardianship and custody
over the child, the respondent filed G.W.O.P.No.18 of 2014 before the I
Additional District Judge, Pudukkottai, which was later transferred to the
Principal District Court, Pudukottai and renumbered as G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2015.
The learned Judge allowed the petition appointing the respondent herein as
the natural guardian and also directed the appellant to handover the custody
of the minor child Aswin Karthick within one month. Questioning the same,
this appeal has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions set
out in the memo of grounds.

4.It is seen that the appellant has got remarried. She is now living
with her husband at Kumbakonam. She has given birth to a female child. The
minor child is not with the appellant. It is with the maternal grandparents.
The appellant is also employed as a Teacher now. On the other hand, the
respondent herein continues to remain single. As the father, he is the
natural guardian.

5.Considering the developments that had taken place in this case and
taking note of the fact that the minor child is a boy, it would be in the
fitness of things to permit the father to have the custody of the child.
The learned trial Judge applied the correct principles of law to the facts of
this case and rightly allowed the petition. There is absolutely no
justification in taking a different view.

6.This civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

To

1.The Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *