Back
Grants Mother Full Custody of Minor Girl After Father’s Misleading Matrimonial Ad
The has allowed a mother’s petition seeking of her minor daughter, citing the father’s lack of interest and a misleading matrimonial advertisement where he claimed to be a divorcee with no children. The court appointed the mother, a senior specialist working in Canada, as the of the child and permitted her to take the girl to Canada.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner mother and respondent father were married and had a daughter, Aathirai, born on . The couple fell out, with the mother filing a in and later a divorce petition alleging cruelty. The father initially filed for but later also sought divorce. Matters reached the High Court, which granted a in . Meanwhile, the mother was transferred to Canada in and left the child in the care of her parents in Chennai. The father was granted but only used them twice in , showing no further interest.
Mother’s Plea and Arguments
Represented by counsel , the mother sought to be declared the , granted , and allowed to take the child to Canada. She had obtained permanent residency in Canada and was earning approximately Rs 3.8 lakh per month, demonstrating financial stability. Her father, acting as her , testified that the father had abandoned all interest in the child.
Court’s Scathing Observation on Father’s Conduct
Justice P.B. Balaji noted that the father’s matrimonial advertisement on Tamil Matrimony.com on , where he described himself as a “divorcee” with “no children,” was definitive proof that he had disowned his own child. The court observed:
“It is also brought to my notice by Ex.P.13 that the respondent/father has advertised in Tamil Matrimony.com on 25.10.2025 stating that he is a divorcee and he has no children, which clearly confirms the fact the respondent/father has disowned his own minor child and having projected himself to be a divorcee with no children, I do not see the respondent/father to be in any way competent to be a guardian or act in the best interest of the minor child.”
Decision and Implications
Allowing the petition, the court appointed the mother as the of the child, granted , and granted her liberty to take the child to Canada. The respondent father did not contest the petition and remained . The ruling underscores the court’s commitment to the welfare of the child as the in custody matters.
