Madras High Court
R. Lakshmi Narasimhan vs T.P.Vasanth on 21 October, 2024
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
O.S.A. No.230 of 2020
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
O.S.A.No.230 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.11600 of 2020
R. Lakshmi Narasimhan .. Appellant
vs.
1. T.P.Vasanth
2. Mrs. Sumeeta .. Respondents
Memorandum of Grounds of Original Side Appeal under Order
XXXVI, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Rule 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the Judgment and Decree passed in OP No.797 of 2017
dated 26.05.2020 on the file of this Court, granting joint custody of the
Minor Child to the respondents herein and also Monopoly right to the
mother/2nd respondent alone to give consent and instructions to the statutory
authorities have to be set aside in view of the adoption being not valid.
For Appellant :: Mr.M.Arunachalam
For Respondents :: Mr.G.Surya Narayanan
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A. No.230 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.)
This appeal is against the Judgment and Decree passed in OP No.797
of 2017 dated 26.05.2020.
2. The order of the learned Single Judge holding that the Biological
mother/ ex-wife of the appellant i.e., the 2nd respondent shall be entitled to
joint custody of the minor child Saatvika along with the step-father/ 1st
respondent subject to the condition that the respondents shall not be
divorced or separated, is under challenge.
3. After hearing the parties at length, this Court is of the view that
from the settlement agreed between the appellant and the 2 nd respondent for
divorce before the impugned order and the subsequent events alleged by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the only genuine grievance of
the appellant appears to be that while passing the impugned order the
learned Single Judge has held that the 2nd respondent is entitled to joint
custody of the minor child Saatvika along with the 1st respondent, who is
only the step-father of the minor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. It is admitted that the minor is the only daughter of the appellant
and the 2nd respondent. Before the Family Court the appellant and the 2 nd
respondent reached an agreement dated 27.11.2012 and as per the
agreement the permanent custody of the minor daughter was to remain with
the 2nd respondent / wife who was held to be the permanent guardian of the
minor daughter Saatvika. From the order impugned, this Court finds that no
right was given to the 1st respondent, however, the relief of adoption was
refused only to protect the interest of the minor so that the minor will not
lose her right as a daughter of her natural father.
5. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the direction that
the 2nd respondent is entitled to joint custody of the minor along with the
step-father of the child/ 1st respondent is unwarranted, as the appellant has
only agreed that the custody might be with the mother and not with any one
else.
6. It is in the said circumstance, the order impugned in this appeal is
modified, accordingly, paragraph No.30 clause (i) will read as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“(i) The biological mother viz., the 2nd
respondent in the OP shall be entitled to the custody of
the minor child Saatvika.”
7. Accordingly, this Original Side Appeal is disposed of with the above
modification. The other portion of the order will be intact. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (A.D.M.C., J.)
21.10.2024
dsa
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
dsa
21.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
