Courts Should Allow Parties To Let In Oral And Documentary Evidence In Guardianship Matters: Madras High Court

While allowing an appeal by a father seeking custody of his minor child, the Madras High Court bench of Justice M.Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan, observed that the order of the single judge was passed without affording an opportunity to the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence."It is settled law that while deciding the Original Petition to appoint the guardian the courts should allow the party to let in oral and documentary evidences. In such view of the matter, on that ground alone, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.423 of2020 is liable to be set aside." the court observed.In the present case, the appellant-husband filed the Original Petition under Sections 3, 7 to 10 and section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with Order XXI Rule 2 and 3 of the Original side Rules praying for grant of permanent custody of the minor male child and to appoint him as the guardian to the minor male child.The single judge dismissed the petition finding that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the respondent-wife before the First Class Magistrate III, Palacad, Kerala was dismissed for the reason that the petition was not properly contested by the respondent-husband.Both the appellant and the respondent submitted that they were not given an opportunity to let in their oral and documentary evidences. The counsels also suggested that a time limit may be fixed for the disposal of the Original Petition and that both the parties would co-operate for the early disposal of the petition.In light of the same, the court set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter afresh after affording the parties to let in oral and documentary evidences. Single Judge was also directed to dispose of the Original Petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment.In the meantime, the Custody of the minor child was to continue with the father, and the mother was allowed to continue talking to the child through video conferencing as per the arrangements made before the single judge.Case Title: A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V.Case No: O.S.A.No.152 of 2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. V.Lakshmi NarayananCounsel for the Respondent: Mr. S. Rajaguru – CaveatorClick here to read/download the judgment

Courts Should Allow Parties To Let In Oral And Documentary Evidence In Guardianship Matters: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags