BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 25.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR in Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.SR10166 of 2026 Sakthishree ... Petitioner Vs.

Sathiskumar ... Respondent PRAYER in CMP(MD).No.1779 of 2026:-Civil Miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the review petition against the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in CRP(MD).No.3653 of 2025 against I.A.No.11 of 2025 in G.W.O.P.No.18 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge at Karur.

PRAYER in Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.SR10166 of 2026:- Review Application is filed against the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in CRP(MD).No.3653 of 2025 against I.A.No.11 of 2025 in G.W.O.P.No.18 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge at Karur.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Exhil Caroline

ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous petition has been filed to condone the delay of

24 days in filing the review petition against the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in CRP(MD).No.3653 of 2025 against I.A.No.11 of 2025 in G.W.O.P.No.18 of

2018 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge at Karur.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

3.The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the revision petition.

4.On merits, it is seen that this Court had already passed a final order on

11.12.2025. In the said order, this Court took note of the fact that the child is suffering from autism and requires special care and attention. At the same time, this Court observed that the love and affection of the father cannot be denied merely on account of the child’s medical condition.

5.Accordingly, this Court permitted the respondent/father to have custody of the child for two days, i.e., on every Saturday and Sunday.

6.It is submitted that the said order has not been complied with by the revision petitioner and, without compliance, the present second review/revision petition has been filed.

7.This Court finds that, till date, the earlier order has not been complied with. Hence, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order already passed by this Court.

8.Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

Consequently, the review application is also dismissed at the SR stage itself.

9.Further, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court had permitted the child to be taken to a common place is not reflected in the order and is found to be a false contention.

10.In view of the above, this Court imposes a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid for the welfare of the child, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Speaking : Yes / No 25.02.2026 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No TM To

1.The Judge, Family Court, Madurai.

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

TM

25.02.2026