Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, R. Suresh Kumar, filed a petition seeking a direction to the first respondent, K.A. Kalavathi, his wife, to produce their male child Siddarth, aged about 4 years, before the Court and to hand over custody of the child to him. The petitioner stated that he married the first respondent five years ago and they have two children: Siddarth and a female child named Mathumitha, aged about 2 years. On 08.11.2005, the first respondent allegedly left the petitioner’s house with the male child without any intimation. The petitioner has not made any complaint against any party, including the third respondent.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner, as the father and natural guardian, is entitled to the custody of the minor child Siddarth under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
  2. Whether the Court can entertain a Habeas Corpus petition to decide the custody or entitlement rights over the minor child.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that as the father and natural guardian of the minor child, he is entitled to custody under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
  • He relied on precedents including AIR 1984 Madras 186 (Suresh Babu v. Madhu) and AIR 1959 Kerala 403 (Vasudevan vs. Viswalakshmi) to support his claim for custody and to argue that the Court can issue directions to the first respondent to hand over the child.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
AIR 1984 Madras 186 (Suresh Babu v. Madhu) Custody rights of father as natural guardian under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act Referenced by petitioner to support entitlement to custody, but the Court did not decide custody in this petition.
AIR 1959 Kerala 403 (Vasudevan vs. Viswalakshmi) Custody and guardianship principles under Hindu law Referenced by petitioner; Court acknowledged but declined to adjudicate custody in Habeas Corpus petition.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the question of custody or entitlement over the minor child cannot be decided in a Habeas Corpus petition. The petitioner had not approached the competent court or forum to resolve his grievance regarding custody. Since the child was reportedly with the mother (the first respondent), the Court held that it was not appropriate to entertain the custody claim in this petition. The Court clarified that the petitioner remains free to seek relief from the appropriate forum.

Holding and Implications

The Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition.

The direct effect is that the petitioner’s claim for custody cannot be adjudicated in this petition, and he must approach the proper legal forum to vindicate his rights. No new precedent was established by this decision.

    R.Suresh Kumar v. K.A.Kalavathi

    (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The petitioner by name R.Suresh Kumar has filed this petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent K.A.Kalavathi, who is none else than his wife, to produce his male child by name Siddarth, aged about 4 = years, in the Court and for furth irection to hand over the child to his custody.

    2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above petition, the petitioner has stated that the first respondent is his wife and the second respondent is his father-in-law. The petitioner married the first respondent five years ago and he was blesse rough the first respondent with one male child by name Siddarth, now aged 4 = years, studying in Kinder Garden class, Don Bosco Matriculation School, Madras. They also have a female child by name Mathumitha, aged about 2 = years. According to the pet itioner, on 08.11.2005, the first respondent left the house of the petitioner along with the male child without any intimation. There is no dispute that the petitioner has not made any complaint against anyone including the third respondent.

    3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to Section-6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, vehemently contended that inasmuch the petitioner being father/natural guardian of the minor, he is entitled to the custod the child and that this Court can issue suitable direction to the first respondent for handing over the minor in favour of the petitioner. In support of the above contention, he relied on a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1984 Madras 186 (Suresh Babu v. Madhu) and also a decision of the Kerala High Court in Vasudevan vs. Viswalakshmi (AIR 1959 Kerala 403).

    4. Insofar as the custody/entitlement/right over the minor child is concerned, we are of the view that the said question cannot be gone into by this Court, hearing Habeas Corpus Petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the competent rt/Forum to vindicate his grievance. Inasmuch as even according to the petitioner, the child, aged about 4 = years, is with the first respondent, who is none else than the mother of the child, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner cannot be gone into by this court in this petition. It is made clear that the petitioner is free to approach the appropriate forum to vindicate his grievance.

    5. With the above observation, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.

    JI.

    To The Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station, Kolathur, Chennai-99.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    R.Suresh Kumar v. K.A.Kalavathi
    (Jan 25, 2006)