SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 3391

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & B. RAJENDRAN
Bindu
Versus
C.V. Ananth Padmanabhan
O.S.A.No.215 of 2011
Decided on: 26-07-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Thiagarajan, Advocate. For the Respondent:P.V. Balasubramanian, Advocate.

The best interest of the children and compliance with court orders are paramount in custody disputes.

Headnote:

Custody Dispute - Family Law - O.P.No.144 of 2008 - 22.12.2010 - 11.03.2010 - 22.10.2010 - 24.6.2011 - 2nd Saturday - 4th Saturday - Visitation Rights - Custody - Educational Needs

Fact of the Case:

The appeal arises from a custody dispute between the parents of minor children. The father filed a petition to appoint him as the guardian of the children, leading to a series of interim orders regarding visitation rights and custody. The trial was pending, and the children were re-located to Pondicherry, where they were studying.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order granting visitation rights to the father on all weekends deprived the mother of the children's company during weekends, affecting their educational needs and extracurricular activities. The court also noted that the earlier order providing interim custody for two weekends was more reasonable.

Issues: The main issue was the modification of visitation rights and custody arrangements, considering the children's educational needs and the compliance with court orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order granting visitation rights to the father on all weekends was not in the best interest of the children, and the earlier order providing interim custody for two weekends was more reasonable. The court directed both parties to co-operate for the early disposal of the main petition.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the earlier order governing the interim custody of the children and sharing of holidays was reinstated. Both parties were directed to co-operate with the trial court for the early disposal of the main petition.

Judgment :-

R. BANUMATHI,J

1. Being aggrieved by the modification of the earlier order dated 22.12.2010 in respect of visitation rights allowed to the Respondent-father, Appellant-mother of the children has come forward with this appeal.

2. Respondent filed Petition in O.P.No.144 of 2008 to appoint him as guardian of their minor children Anamika (Date of Birth 25.02.1999) and Riyaan (Date of Birth 17.12.2003). In the Petition, number of interim orders came to be passed which may not be of much relevance for the limited scope of the question involved in this appeal. Suffice it to note that in the earlier order in O.S.A.No.268 of 2008 dated 07.8.2008, the Division Bench ordered that the main O.P. itself be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of the order and directed the parties to co-operate for early disposal of the matter.

3. When the children were located in Hyderabad, on application filed by the Respondent-father, by an order dated 11.03.2010, Justice V.Ramasubramanian, J interalia passed the order permitting the Respondent-father to take interim custody on the evening of Friday preceding the second Saturday of a month and bring them to Chennai and hand over the custody of the children on the following Sunday before 8.00 p.m. at Hyderabad.

4. Thereafter trial commenced on 05.02.2010. Proof affidavit of PW1 filed and 38 documents were marked on her side. Then the case was adjourned to 12.02.2010 for PW1's cross examination. In the mean while, Appellant-mother and the minor children were re-located in Pondicherry. Respondent-father filed various applications. By the order dated 22.10.2010, Justice V.Ramasubramanian,J passed an order to the effect that in addition to the second weekend, Respondent-father should have similar custody of the children on the fourth weekend of every month also and the relevant portion of the said order dated 22.12.2010 reads as under:-

"(c) The petitioner-father shall take the children on the evening of the Friday preceding the Second Saturday of a month and after having company of the children on Saturday and Sunday, hand over the children at the residence of the respondent-mother before 6.00 P.M., on the following Sunday. The same arrangement shall also happen on the Friday preceding the fourth Saturday of the month so that the petitioner has interim custody for the second weekend and the fourth weekend of every month."

5. Even though trial commenced in February 2010, there was not much progress in the trial. Even when the trial is pending, Respondent-father again filed other set of applications to modify the order dated 11.03.2010 and also the order dated 22.10.2010 and the applications were disposed of by the impugned order dated 24.6.2011 giving Respondent-father custody of children on every alternative weekends and other alternative weekends to have visitation rights. The impugned order reads as under:-

"(a) the father shall take custody of children on every alternative Saturday morning and bring them to Chennai and drop them back on the evening of the next day, viz., the following Sunday. On the other alternative weekend, the father shall have the company of the children in Pondicherry itself; and

(b) all the vacations, such as Dasara, Christmas and Summer, whenever children have all these vacations, shall be shared equally between both the parties."

The effect of the above order is that Respondent-father shall have custody/visitation rights on all weekends. Being aggrieved by the grant of visitation rights to Respondent-father on all weekends, Appellant-mother has come forward with this appeal.


6. When the matter was taken up on 22.07.2011, parties were present. We have also enquired the children in the Chamber. We have noticed that daughter-Anamika, aged 12 years is not willing to go with the Respondent-father even for one day. We have also enquired the boy-Riyaan, aged 7 years. Boy-Riyaan has not expressed anything and remained quiet. In the above said circumstances, we felt




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top