Madras High Court
M.Sherin Jahan vs M.Marood Khan on 8 August, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 08.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2009
C.M.A.(MD)No.720 of 2009
M.Sherin Jahan ..Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
M.Marood Khan ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 of
Guardian and Wards Act, 1870, to set aside the order dated
30.06.2009 made in G.W.O.P.No.226 of 2007, on the file of the I
Additional District Court, Tirunelveli .
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
C.M.A.(MD)No.825 of 2009
M.Marood Khan ..Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
M.Sherin Jahan ... Respondent/Petitioner
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 of
Guardian and Wards Act, 1870, against the order dated 30.06.2009
passed in I.A. No.159 in made in G.W.O.P.No.226 of 2007, on the file
of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli .
For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents : No appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
Since the appeals are arising out of one and the same order
both the appeals are taken up together.
2.The appellant in CMA(MD) No.825 of 2009, who is the father
of the minor child, filed GWOP No.226 of 2007 before the I
Additional District Court, Tirunelveli for a direction to appoint him
as guardian of the minor child. By the order dated 30.06.2009, the
father was appointed as natural guardian. While doing so, the
learned Judge had relied upon the evidence of the mother, namely,
the appellant in CMA(MD)No. 720 of 2009, where she stated that
she had no objection if the father/husband is appointed as natural
guardian.
3. Pending the petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, the
wife had filed I.A. No.169 of 2008 for a direction to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009
father/husband to hand over custody of the minor child. The said
petition was originally decided on 04.11.2008 and thereafter
pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.
4748/2009 the case was re-opened and after hearing the parties, the
trial Court found that the custody cannot be handed over to the
wife/mother. However the trial Court had directed the husband to
permit the mother to visit the minor child on all Sundays and on the
child birthday and on all festival days.
4. The mother/wife aggrieved by the order passed in GWOP
No.226 of 2007 appointing the father/husband as natural guardian,
has preferred CMA(MD) No. 720 of 2009.
5. The father/husband aggrieved by the direction permitting
the mother/wife to see the minor child in I.A.No.169/2008 in GWOP
No. 226 of 2007, has filed CMA(MD) No. 825 of 2009.
6. Since the mother/wife was represented by the learned
Counsel who has since been elevated as a Judge of this Court,
notice was sent to the mother/wife. However, the same was
returned with an endorsement that she was not residing in the said
address.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009
7. The learned counsel further submitted that the child who is
under the custody of the father/husband had now attained majority
and nothing survives for further adjudication.
8. This Court perused the impugned order passed in both the
appeals.
9. The order impugned in CMA(MD) No. 720 of 2009, as stated
earlier, is the order appointing the father/husband as natural
guardian. The said order has been passed only on the ground that
the father/husband is the natural guardian of the minor child as per
Muslim personal law. The mother/wife had deposed that she had no
objection if the father is appointed as natural guardian. In such
circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the
I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli is in accordance with law and
no interference is called for.
10. That apart, as rightly contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the father/husband the child has now attained majority
and the whole exercise is academic.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009
11. As regards the appeal filed by the father/husband
challenging the direction permitting visitation by the mother/wife
this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the said order as the
mother/wife would be entitled to visitation rights and therefore
CMA(MD)No.820 of 2009 also deserves to be dismissed.
12. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stand
dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
08.08.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
aav
To:
1. The I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli .
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
aav
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.720 and 825 of 2009
08.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
