Madras High Court
OSA/89/2023 of J. Vijeyarani Vs R.Dellibabu @ Roshan on 13 October 2026
OSA No. 89 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 89 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA010574782022}
J. Vijeyarani
D/o.Jayaseelan, 11, 12 A4, Chambu Vilas, Kandasamy Nagar, 10 th Cross, Palavakkam, Chennai 41.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
R.Dellibabu @ Roshan
S/o. Ramasamy, No.23/11, Srinidhi Apartments, Indra Nagar, 4th Main Road, Adayar, Chennai - 20
..Respondent(s)
Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of CPC read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 09.03.2022 in OP
No.372 of 2016
For Appellant(s):
Ms.S.Kamala Rani
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition filed to appoint the appellant/petitioner as guardian of the minor children R.V.R.Ajay Varman aged 10 years and R.V.R.Arjun Samrrat aged 5 years vide order dated 09.03.2022, the present appeal has been filed.
OSA No. 89 of 2023
2. The petition has been taken out by the appellant/petitioner for appointing her as natural guardian of minor children in OP.No.372 of 2016, the learned Single Judge noting that absolutely there is no allegations in the entire petition to show that the respondent is acting adverse to the interest of the minor children and further, his father is also natural guardian had dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first child has already attained majority, therefore, petition as against the elder son has become infructous, however, as far as the second child is concerned, he is only 16 years, petitioner being the mother is entitled to be appointed as guardian.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials placed on record.
5. Now the point arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to be appointed as guardian, particularly, when the husband is alive and he is not acting adverse to the interest of the minor?
6. The entire allegations relate is matrimonial dispute between the appellant and her husband. The appellant is also a Government Servant and she is pursuing PhD and she was working outside the city many times; except alleging that her husband caused cruelties, there is no allegations whatsoever in the entire application even to infer, he has acted adverse to the interest of the minor child at any point of time. Such being the position, though the custody remained with the mother, the fact that father is also a natural guardian, that
OSA No. 89 of 2023
cannot be disputed. Therefore, only the matrimonial dispute alone is raised in the petition and when no allegations is raised pointing out the adverse circumstances against the husband towards the children, as a matter of right the petitioner cannot seek appointment of guardian. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in this appeal and this original side appeal stands dismissed. No costs. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk
OSA No. 89 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. dhk OSA No. 89 of 2023 13-10-2026