CMA(MD)No.212 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 22.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

CMA(MD).No. 212 of 2023 and

CMP(MD).No.5761 of 2022

Arockia Leo Tolstoy Fernando

Appellant/ respondent

vs.

1.J.Sahaya Golden Pravina

2.Minor Joe Beovin Fernando

3.Minor. Mary Hashini Fernando

(Minors represented through their

mother / 1^st respondent)

Respondents

PRAYER:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47 of

the Guardian and Wards Act against the fair and decreetal order in

GWOP.No.57 of 2016, dated 31.07.2019 on the file of the Principal

District Judge, Thoothukudi.

For Appellant

: Mr.P. Edin Brough

For respondents

: Mr. K.A. Ramakrishnan

1/6

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

CMA(MD)No.212 of 2023

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the father of the

minor children against the fair and decreetal order, dated 31.07.2019

passed in GWOP.No.57 of 2016, on the file of the Principal District Judge,

Thoothukudi, allowing the petition of the mother by appointing her as the

legal guardian of the minor children viz., Joe Beovin Fernando and

Hashini Fernando respectively, as per Section 7(2) and 9 of the Guardian

Wards Act, 1890.

2. At the request of both sides counsel, the matter is taken up

for final disposal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits

that though the appeal has been filed challenging the appointment of the

first respondent as the guardian of the minor children, he is restricting the

appeal for visitation rights alone. He further submits that being the

biological father, the Court may permit visitation rights to the appellant.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits

2/6

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

CMA(MD)No.212 of 2023

that the respondent has no objection to the appellant visiting the children.

5. In the light of the submission made, on the facts of the case

and also considering the academic pursuits of the minor children, I am of

the view that the appellant may be permitted to visit the children during the

summer vacations of the children.

6. According to the respondents, in the month of September

the minor children visit India for summer vacation and so the appellant can

visit them at that time. Considering the fair submission of the respondent,

the appellant is permitted to visit the minor children during their summer

vacations in September. The appellant shall bear the costs of the Air fare

from Dubai to Tuticorin of the minor children. It is made clear that the

visit shall be restricted to once a week during the summer vacation, which

it is represented will be a four weeks break. The appellant is permitted to

visit the children in a public place of the children's choice.

6. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties on

visitation rights the order passed by the trial Court with regard to

appointing the 1^st respondent as guardian is confirmed and accordingly,

3/6

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

CMA(MD)No.212 of 2023

this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently,

the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

22.02.2023

Index

: Yes/No

Internet

: Yes/No

trp

4/6

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

CMA(MD)No.212 of 2023

To

The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.

5/6

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

CMA(MD)No.212 of 2023

N. MALA, J.,

trp

CMA(MD).No. 212 of 2023 and

CMP(MD).No.5761 of 2022

22.02.2023

6/6

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