SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Veeralakshmi vs Seenivasagam on 27 November, 2017


DATED: 27.11.2017



C.M.A.(MD)No.101 of 2016

Veeralakshmi … Appellant

Seenivasagam … Respondent

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47 of Guardian
and Wards Act, 1890, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2015
passed in G.W.O.P.No.29 of 2011, on the file of the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Periyakulam.

!For Appellant : Mr.M.Vedasingh
^For Respondent : Mr.Jeganathan


Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.This appeal has been filed by the mother, questioning the order dated
12.06.2015, made in G.W.O.P.No.29 of 2011, on the file of learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Periyakulam.

3.The appellant herein got married to the respondent on 06.09.2004 at
Theni. A female child Ragitha was born on 12.06.2005. The marital
relationship between the parties herein is under strain. The respondent
filed a petition for divorce and it was granted. The appellant filed an
appeal made in H.M.C.M.A.No.7 0f 2011, on the file of the District Court,
Madurai and the same was allowed. The respondent has questioned the same
before this Court and it is said to be pending. The issue involved in the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is however, regarding the guardianship and
custody of the minor child Ragitha.

4.The respondent is the father of the child. He is the natural
guardian of the child. The child is living with her father for the last
eleven years. The appellant herein is working as a Siddha Doctor in the
Government Hospital at Thiruthangal. The respondent herein filed
G.W.O.P.NO.29 of 2011, seeking guardianship as well as the custody. The
learned Trial Judge allowed the petition by order dated 12.06.2015. The
respondent was declared as the guardian. The appellant was given visitation
rights.. This is under challenge in this appeal.

5.This Court asked the respondent herein to produce the child before
the Court. I had a long personal session with the child. The child is being
brought up well by her father. The child is very intelligent.

6.The child Ragitha expressed her willingness to be only with her
father. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant any
interference. The learned Trial Judge has given sound reasons for passing
the order impugned in this appeal.

7.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,

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