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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Maria Vinoth Robinston – Appellant
Versus
ArulMary W/o Francis Xavier – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P.Muthusamy
For the Respondents: No appearance

The court affirmed the necessity of addressing child custody based on guardianship law, particularly following the death of the mother.

Headnote:The case discusses the application filed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act for interim custody of a minor child. The petitioner, following the death of the child's mother, seeks permanent custody. The court, considering the situation and lack of representation from the respondents, directs disposition of the main petition within three months while granting custody to the petitioner. The concluding order recognizes the petition's resolution.

Table of Content
1. court's role in child custody disputes. (Para 1 , 2)
2. application for custodial rights post parent's death. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's directive for child custody resolution. (Para 5)

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in G.W.O.P.No. 8 of 2024 by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, the Revision Petitioner/petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on the side of respondents.

3. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioner filed an application under Sec.12 of Guardian and Wards Act to grant interim custody of minor child to the only legal guardian, Petitioner from the respondents for three days (Friday to Sunday) in every week till the disposal of the main petition and the same was granted in favour of the petitioner. Now, the Revision Petitioner had challenged the said order stating that he wanted to have permanent custody of the child.

4. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that already mother of child died due to some natural illness and the respondents are his father-in-law and mother-in-law, but as on date, the child is with the custody of Revision Petitioner. Hence, he prayed to grant permission to have permanent custody of the child.

5. On perusal of records, the fact reveals that since the child is under the custody of Revision Petitioner, already he had filed a petition in G.W.O.P.No. 8 of 2024. Considering that and also the fact that the respondents, who are inlaws of the petitioner not appeared inspite of notice, the trial judge is directed to dispose of the said petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Until then, the custody of the child is granted with the father of child, since mother was already died. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

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