Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 445 (MAD)

M. Kumaraguru v. K. Mangala

2025-01-22

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

body2025
ORDER : V.Lakshminarayanan, J. These two civil revision petitions challenge the orders of the learned Principal District Judge at Thiruvallur in I.ANos.2 and 3 of 2023 in GWOP.No.112 of 2022 dated 14.10.2024. 2. Since the issues involved in both proceedings are one and the same, I clubbed the revisions together for final disposal. 3. I heard Mr.M.Guruprasad for the civil revision petitioner/father and Mr.T.SaiKrishnan for the respondent/mother. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as the father and mother. 5. The civil revision petitioner is the father. He solemnized his wedding with the mother on 10.12.2012. From the wedlock, a child was born to the couple on 04.01.2014. Thereafter, they separated. The father initiated HMOP.No.6 of 2016, on the file of the Family Court at Coimbatore. It was transferred, pursuant to an order of this Court and renumbered as HMOP.No.2609 of 2016, on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai. Later on, the said proceedings were withdrawn by the father. 6. Subsequently, the wife initiated HMOP.No.589 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Poonamallee. The petition was allowed exparte on 23.12.2020. Pursuant to the grant of divorce, the parties have moved on. Both of them have contracted their second marriage. 7. The dispute now pertains to the custody of the child born to the couple in the year 2014. The father, pleading that he is in a position to bring the child up as a good person in the society, sought for guardianship of his minor son. This proceedings was numbered as GWOP.No.112 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at Thiruvallur. Summons were served on the mother. She has also filed a detailed counter. 8. Pending the disposal of the GWOP, the father took out an application in I.A.No.2 of 2023 seeking interim custody of the child for a period of 15 days in the month of May and also for custody of the child whenever long vacations intervene and also for permission to speak with the child, every Sunday and Wednesday, between 7 pm and 7.30 pm, over the mobile phone. 9. 9. The mother filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2023, seeking an order under Section 24 of the Guardians and Wards Act , to direct the father to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month as monthly maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses. She pleaded that the child is studying in a pre-eminent institution in the city of Chennai and with great difficulty, she is paying the school fees and other expenses for the child. She pointed out that the father is having three properties in Coimbatore, Erode and Bangalore and that his monthly income is about Rs.1,60,000/-. She pointed out that the father is doing real estate business and has a horiculture estate in Kothagiri, Udagamandalam. Hence, she pleaded that the father will have to bear, at least, 50% of the expenses of the child. She further stated that the husband has not spent a single paisa towards the expenses of the child for the past ten years. She contended that in order to avoid any claim that may be made by her on the property, the father has transferred his assets in favour of her father in law. 10. This petition was resisted by the father stating that he is ready to pay any reasonable expenses for the child. He pleaded that the amounts sought for by the wife in the petition is excessive and arbitrary. Further, he stated that if custody of the child is handed over to him, he will not claim any share from the mother towards the expenses of the child. 11. The learned Trial Judge considered both the contentions and allowed the application for interim maintenance directing the father to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month, from the date of application till the date of disposal of the main GWOP. Insofar as I.A.No.2 of 2023 filed for interim custody is concerned, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition. She recorded that the child is not willing to spend time with the father. Aggrieved by both the orders, the civil revision petitions. 12. Mr.M.Guruprasad submits that the father has been given visitation rights in I.A.No.1 of 2023. The visitation rights are to be exercised at a common place near the residence of the mother, on the last Sunday of every month between 2 pm and 5 pm. Aggrieved by both the orders, the civil revision petitions. 12. Mr.M.Guruprasad submits that the father has been given visitation rights in I.A.No.1 of 2023. The visitation rights are to be exercised at a common place near the residence of the mother, on the last Sunday of every month between 2 pm and 5 pm. He pleads that there is no adverse report on his conduct by the mother and therefore, unless and until the custody is granted during the long vacations, the father will not develop a fruitful relationship with his son. Insofar as the interim maintenance is concerned, Mr.M.Guruprasad states that a sum of Rs.40,000/- is highly excessive and the same may be reduced to Rs.20,000/- per month. He states that the father is willing to pay educational fees of the child till the child completes his collegiate education. 13. Mr.T.Sai Krishnan strongly opposes the revisions. He states that the father has not even exercised the visitation rights that have been granted to him in I.A.No.1 of 2023 properly. He points out that the child is not wiling to accompany the father for long durations and therefore, pleads that the request for interim visitation deserves to be rejected. With respect to the interim maintenance that has been ordered, Mr.T.Sai Krishnan urges that the amount granted is very meagre. He states that the mother has been taking care of the child from his birth and has expended all the expenses including educational fees from his Kindergarten to the present. He points out, apart from the school fees, which runs into a couple of lakhs every year, the mother has been spending towards extra curricular activities for the child like Robotics, Spell Bee, Health Insurance, Educational gadgets and other miscellaneous expenses. The calculation that she has given shows the mother is spending a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- every year on the child. He states that as the child is growing older, the expenses will also increase. Hence, the amount of Rs.40,000/- per month is neither excessive nor arbitrary. 14. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and have gone through the records. 15. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The parties were married and have divorced each other, pursuant to the decree of the court. The father has been given interim visitation rights, pursuant to the order of the court in I.A.No.1 of 2023. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and have gone through the records. 15. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The parties were married and have divorced each other, pursuant to the decree of the court. The father has been given interim visitation rights, pursuant to the order of the court in I.A.No.1 of 2023. Though he had sought for 12 hours of visitation on every alternate Sunday, the court has granted visitation rights on the last Sunday of every month between 2 pm and 5 pm. 16. The learned Trial Judge, prior to deciding the application for interim custody, had summoned the child to the court and has given to a factual finding that the child does not like to spend long vacations with his father. However, the learned Trial Judge has not recorded the fact that the child is totally averse to spending time with the father. 17. When the paternity of the child is not in dispute, the father would love to spend time with the child. It will be in the best interest of the child that he knows who his father is. The father and child are separated by nearly 700 kms. If the interim custody is granted, as sought for by the father, it will be difficult for the child to adjust. Therefore, instead of granting interim custody, I am inclined to extend the time for visitation rights that has been granted by the court. 18. Being an interlocutory order, it is capable of being modified at any stage of the proceedings. The father, after having travelled nearly 700 kms, hardly gets only 3 hours per month to spend with the child. This, in my view, is insufficient. 19. Therefore, though the father seeks for interim custody, I am inclined to modify the interim visitation rights granted by the trial court from last Sunday of every month between 2 pm and 5 pm, to every 2 and 4 th Sunday of every month between 10 am and 6 pm. The father should not take the child outside the jurisdiction of the city of Chennai. The father should not in any manner act or tend to act, which will affect the relationship of the child with his mother. In case, the mother were to travel to Kumbakonam, the father will be entitled to exercise the same visitation rights in Kumbakonam. The father should not take the child outside the jurisdiction of the city of Chennai. The father should not in any manner act or tend to act, which will affect the relationship of the child with his mother. In case, the mother were to travel to Kumbakonam, the father will be entitled to exercise the same visitation rights in Kumbakonam. 20. The prayer for Interim custody is rejected for the present. If the father and son develop a healthy relationship, it is always open to the father to move an application for interim custody at a later date. In such an event, the father can always move an application before the trial court seeking such reliefs. 21. Turning to the application for interim maintenance, Mr.M.Guruprasad does not dispute that it is the duty of the father to maintain the child. From the records, it is clear that the child is studying in an extremely good institution in the city of Chennai. Instead of directing the father to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month, the maintenance amount can be staggered. The revisions are disposed of in the following terms: (i) The father, on production of bills/invoices that the child incurs, towards the educational and extra curricular activities, shall make payment directly to the institution or institutions, where the child is undergoing the said activities. (ii) Apart from educational expenses, the father shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month for the expenses of the child. (iii) The amount shall be directly transferred by the father to the account of the mother on or before 10 th of every month. (iv) The father will be entitled to visit the child in terms of Paragraph 19 of this order. (v) The father will be entitled to exercise the right of visitation only, if he pays a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the month in which he is exercising the right of visitation. (vi) The liability of the father to pay Rs.25,000/- per month will arise from the date of filing of GWOP, i.e., from January 2022. I am fixing the date as January 2022 on account of the fact that the mother has been solely taking care of the child from the time, when he was born till the age of 8. (vi) The liability of the father to pay Rs.25,000/- per month will arise from the date of filing of GWOP, i.e., from January 2022. I am fixing the date as January 2022 on account of the fact that the mother has been solely taking care of the child from the time, when he was born till the age of 8. (vii) The arrears from January 2022 till January 2025 shall be cleared within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fact that this court has granted time for payment of arrears does not mean the father does not pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- from the month of January 2025 onwards. (viii) In case, on account of education or health reasons, the child is not able to be presented or not in a position to spend time on a given Sunday with the father, the father will be entitled for a compensatory Sunday in that month. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.