Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Madras High Court Entrusts Guardianship to Maternal Grandparents in a Child Custody Dispute Involving Deceased Parents’ Families

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Dhanabal, has resolved a complex child custody dispute by entrusting the guardianship of a minor, Varunavi, to her maternal grandparents. This decision, delivered on the 12th of January, 2024, came in the wake of a heartbreaking incident where the child’s parents lost their lives in a road accident, leading to a guardianship tussle between the families of the deceased parents.

The Court, while disposing of C.M.A.(MD)Nos.584 and 585 of 2014, upheld the earlier decision of the trial court, which had granted the custody of Varunavi to her maternal grandmother, dismissing the petition filed by the paternal grandfather. Justice Dhanabal remarked, “the maternal grandparents are appointed as guardian to the minor child Varunavi for the person and property.” This statement encapsulates the crux of the judgment, emphasizing the Court’s commitment to the child’s welfare.

In his judgment, Justice Dhanabal outlined specific conditions for the child’s upbringing and care. The paternal grandfather, who initially challenged the trial court’s decision, is directed to ensure that the child spends every weekend with the maternal grandparents. The Court also made provisions for the child’s dietary needs, stating, “Whenever the maternal grandparents wish to give the minor child food prepared by them, they can provide the same to the minor child, for which, the appellant shall not object.”

This case, a poignant reminder of the legal system’s role in safeguarding the interests of minors in familial disputes, highlights the Court’s careful consideration of the child’s emotional and physical well-being. The judgment demonstrates a balanced approach, accommodating the interests of both sides of the family while prioritizing the child’s needs.

Date of Decision: 12th January 2024

S.RAJ VS RATCHAKA

 

Similar News