SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

A.Muthukrishnan vs P.Ayyasamy on 31 October, 2017


DATED: 31.10.2017



C.M.A.(MD)No.895 of 2015
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015

A.Muthukrishnan … Appellant


P.Ayyasamy … Respondent

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 55 of the Guardians and Wards Act, to set
aside the order dated 10.04.2015 made in G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2012 on the file of
the Principal District Court, Theni and consequently appoint the appellant as
the guardian of the minor Harishini aged 4 years.

!For Appellant : Mr.S.Gokul Raj

^For Respondent : No Appearance


Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.The appellant and the daughter of the respondent herein viz., Rani
Chandra got married on 13.06.2008. The minor child Harishini was born to
them. Unfortunately, the said Rani Chandra committed suicide on 13.06.2012.
In this regard, criminal prosecution was initiated against the appellant. He
is still facing the criminal case. The child remained with the respondent,
who is the maternal grandfather. Seeking custody of the child, the
appellant filed G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2012. The learned trial Judge took note of
the criminal case pending against the appellant and dismissed the petition by
order dated 10.04.2015. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

3.During the pendency of this appeal, certain developments took place.
It is stated that the respondent got remarried. The child appears to have
been with the maternal uncle. It is also stated that the child was not
properly maintained. Therefore, on account of the intervention through the
child line, the custody of the child was given to the appellant. In other
words, even though G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2012 filed by the appellant came to be
dismissed, the custody of the child was restored to him.

4.I directed the appellant to produce the child before me. I examined
the child in the chambers. I found that the child is happy and cheerful and
is being brought up well.

5.Under these circumstances, the question of handing over the child to
the custody of the respondent will not arise. I therefore set aside the
order dated 10.04.2015 in G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2012 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Theni. G.W.O.P.No.36 of 2012 has to be allowed. The
appellant is the natural guardian. He is also entitled to have the custody
of the minor child Harishini.

6.This civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


1.The Principal District Judge, Theni.

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


Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation