C.R.P(NPD).No.607 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

C.R.P(NPD).No.607 of 2022 and

C.M.P.No.3159 of 2022

A.Sabarivasan

S/o. B.Amrutha Ganesan

... Petitioner

Versus

V.Chandra Lekha

W/o. A.Sabarivasan,

... Respondent

PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the

docket order dated 26.11.2021 passed in G.W.O.P.Sr.No.OP/424/2021 on the

file of Hon'ble Family Court, Vellore.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.S.Murali Krishnan

O R D E R

The revision is filed challenging certain docket order passed in unnumbered

G.W.O.P.Sr.No.OP/424/2021.

2. The revision petitioner is the father of the Children and respondent is the

mother. He had filed guardian ward petition to declare that the

Page 1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(NPD).No.607 of 2022

petitioner/father of the Children as the permanent guardian of the two minor

children.

3. This was returned on filing on the following grounds:

(a) How is prayer (a) maintainable. Petitioner is a natural guardian of the

minor to be stated as per u/s 6 of the HMG Act 1956.

(b) How this petition is maintainable on the point of territorial jurisdiction

{u/s 9 of the GW Act 1890}

4. This is challenged in this revision on the ground of return.

5. This Court is literally shocked to read ground Nos.1 and 3 for the grounds

of return. Ground No.1 extracted above indicates that the Court insists on a

statement in the pleadings of the Revision petitioner that he is the natural

guardian of the minor children under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and

Guardianship Act, 1956, and ground No.3 relates to territorial jurisdiction of

the minors in maintaining the Guardian and Wards original petition before the

Court in Vellore in terms of Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890.

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(NPD).No.607 of 2022

5.1. So far as first ground goes, a perusal of the petition shows that even in

paragraph No.1, the revision petitioner has made a statement that he has

married the respondent and the minors were born to him. Whether some

body is a natural guardian or not, is a legal consequence of the children born

out of a valid marriage.

5.2. This Court is aghast as to why a specific pleading must be required on

that aspect. In this regard, the Family Court, Vellore has totally ignored the

order of this Court in the case of Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power

Plant. It is not for the Court to dictate as to what should be pleaded, and it

must be left to the choice of the parties. Let the party be allowed to stand by

the pleadings, and it is their obligations to sustain their pledings.

6. Turning to Paragraph 9 is concerned, Application is filed before the Family

Court and Section 7 (1)(g) of the Family Act empowers a Family Court to deal

with the issue relating to custody of the children born out of marriage. This

Court considers that there is lack of application of mind by the learned Family

Judge on this issue. It is also now evident that the learned Family Judge has

Page 3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(NPD).No.607 of 2022

not trained his passing officer/Sherishtadar on the parameters that he has to

take into account while scrutunising any petition/application filed by the

parties and that he is not entitled to. It is apparent that whoever is Passing

Officer/Registry of the Family Court, he is absolutely ignorant about the ratio

laid in Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited and

Others reported in 2021 (4) CTC 539 : 2021-3-LW 677 : 2021 (3) MWN 73]

7. The Revision petitioner is now required to represent the petition again

before the Family Court, which has to now apply the mind to the facts stated

as in terms of what is stated ab