SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

M.Sikkandar Rahim vs Abida Beevi on 6 August, 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 06.08.2018

CORAM

THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

CMA(MD) No.1024 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

M.Sikkandar Rahim … Appellant/Petitioner
-Vs-

Abida Beevi …Respondent /Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47 of the Guardian
and Wards Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.06.2011 in
G.W.O.P.No.106 of 2010 on the file of 1st Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.

!For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil
^For Respondent : Mr.G.A.Nataraj

:JUDGMENT

The appellant is the petitioner in G.W.O.P.No.106 of 2010. He has filed
the original petition for a direction to appoint the appellant as Guardian of
the minor Jamuna and Minor Naushad Apsana. The respondent filed a counter
opposing the Original Petition. Before the trial court, the appellant was
examined as P.W.1 and the respondent and two minor children were examined as
P.W.1 to PW. 3. The learned Judge dismissed the said original petition.
Against the said order of dismissal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
learned trial Judge has not considered the pleadings, evidence and without
giving any reason, has dismissed the Original Petition filed by the appellant
and prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial
Judge has considered evidence let in by the parties and then only dismissed
the petition filed by the appellant and prayed for dismissal of this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. A reading of the impugned order filed in the typed set of papers
clearly shows that the trial Judge has not considered the pleadings, evidence
let in by the parties and dismissed G.W.O.P.No.106 of 2011 without giving any
reason. In view of the same, the order passed by the learned I Additional
District Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 13.06.2011 is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the said court for fresh consideration on merits and in
accordance with law. The learned I Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli,
is directed to dispose of the petition within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement.

6. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2011 is closed.

To

1.Ist Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The Record Keeper, V.R.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