CRP (PD) No. 776 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013. Case: V.G. Jayasutha Vs T. Sivamani. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberCRP (PD) No. 776 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Mrs. C. Sangamithirai, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanantham, Adv,
JudgesR. Mala, J.
IssueCivil Procedure Code
Judgement DateJune 06, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)

Order:

R. Mala, J.

  1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 11.08.2012 made in I.A. No. 1715 of 2010 in O.P. No. 1042 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai, allowing the husband/respondent herein to visit the child S.J. Sukanya @ S. Prarthana on 2nd Saturday of every month at Children Center, Family Court Premises, Chennai, from 11 a.m. to 12.00 p.m., commenced from the Month of September 2012.

  2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent herein was performed on 22.02.2007 and a child was born on 18.11.2007 and the wife/revision petitioner herein left from the matrimonial home along with her child on 12.07.2009 and the husband/respondent herein filed O.P. No. 3069 of 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights along with I.A. No. 4578 of 2009 in O.P. No. 3069 of 2009 to visit the child and subsequently, he withdraw O.P. No. 3069 of 2009 and after withdrawing O.P. No. 3069 of 2009, he filed another O.P. No. 1042 of 2010 for divorce on the ground of cruelty and he also filed I.A. No. 1715 of 2010 in O.P. No. 1042 of 2010 to visit the child and during the pendency of I.A. No. 1715 of 2010, he filed another I.A. No. 1213 of 2011 in O.P. No. 1042 of 2010 to send the child for DNA Test by questioning the paternity of the child, which was subsequently withdrawn by him. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has taken me to paras 3, 4, 10 of the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 1213 of 2011 and submitted that the husband/respondent herein made an allegation against his wife stating that she is having an illegal affairs with one Arun Vijayakumar, who is none other than the son of the paternal aunt and disputed the paternity of the child, but, the trial Court has not considered the said aspect and allowed the application. She has further submitted that once the paternity of the child is disputed, the husband is not entitled to visit the child. Hence, she prayed for setting aside the order of the trial Court.

  3. Resisting the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has fairly conceded that the husband/respondent herein filed O.P. No. 3069 of 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights and he withdrew the same and thereafter, he filed another O.P. No. 1042 of 2010 for divorce and he also filed I.A. No. 1715 of 2010 in O.P. No. 1042 of 2010 to visit the child and during the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT