CRP/4935/2026 of Venkata Pattabhi Raman Vs Sowmiyah on 24 September 2026

ORDER

The husband in the matrimonial proceedings is the revision petitioner, challenging an order passed in I.A. No.3 of 2026, by partly allowing the prayer sought for by the petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.K.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam, learned counsel for the respondent.

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

3. Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner husband and the respondent/wife had already reached an amicable settlement, recorded in O.P. No.3852 of 2016 and divorce by mutual consent was also granted. The compromise reached between the parties was also incorporated in the final orders in O.P. No.3852 of 2016. The present issue relates to the custody of the child which was originally given to the respondent/wife. In fact, Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel took me through the terms of the settlement reached between the parties, the child custody rights that was granted to the petitioner and the respondent and in the manner indicated in the order in O.P. No.3852 of 2016.

4. Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner would however state that the respondent has started acting against the interest and welfare of the minor son and therefore, it became necessary for the petitioner/husband to move an Application in I.A. No.1 of 2025, seeking modifications to the terms of the divorce decree dated 18.04.2017. Pending the said application, the petitioner has filed I.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 2026. The present revision petition relates to the order passed in I.A. No.3 of 2026. In the said I.A., according Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had sought for discovery and production of six documents, morefully described in the Schedule to I.A. No.1 of 2025 and the Family Court after conducting an enquiry and factoring the objections of the respondent/wife had

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

chosen to partly allow the said application by allowing Item 6 of the Schedule alone and dismissing the application with regard to the remaining 5 Items, that were also sought to be discovered/produced.

5. Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in I.A. No.1 of 2025, admittedly, the petitioner has made allegations against the respondent/wife with regard to the mishandling of finances, especially the amounts being deposited by the petitioner towards maintenance of the minor son into the minor son's bank account. He also invited me to the averments in I.A. No.1 of 2025, where the petitioner has made a specific allegation that the petitioner understands that the money that is deposited towards maintenance to the minor's account, has been defrayed by the respondent's wife to meet her personal expenses, including travelling abroad. It is also the contention of Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has frequently left the minor son in the custody of her aged parents and is not devoting sufficient time for the upkeep and welfare of the minor son.

6. Pending the said application, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.3 of 2026, seeking for the following documents:- " SCHEDULE

1. Bank account statement of Minor Radra Raman, HDFC Account No.50100174241398, Santhome Branch, Chennai from

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

October 2016 to till date.

2. Fixed deposits created in the name of Minor Rudra Raman from the HDFC Account No.50100174241398, Santhome Branch from October 2016 to till date.

3. All bank account statements of the Respondent for the FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26 including her account in HDFC bearing Account No.50100104877762, Santhome Branch, Chennai and account in ICICI bank

4. Proof of employment of the Respondent and income receipts since July, 2025.

5. Passports of the Respondent bearing No.S1850217 showing her travel history for the period October 2017 to till date.

6. Lease deed/Rental agreement executed by the Respondent for her new rental apartment (SBI Officers Colonly)."

7. The learned counsel would therefore state that these documents are very much material to establish the claim of the petitioner that the respondent is not acting in the welfare and interest of the minor son. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed by directing the respondent to produce documents set out in Items No.1 to 5 of the schedule to the petition in I.A. No.3 of 2016.

8. Per contra, Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam, learned counsel for the respondent would firstly contend that the application is clearly is an abuse of process and intended only to harass the respondent/wife. She would further contend that the

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

petitioner has been paying a sum of Rs.10000/- per month towards maintenance of the minor son, who is aged 14+ years as on date and the amount that is being paid by the petitioner/husband, does not in any manner, meet the actual financial requirement to maintain the minor son. She would further state that the petitioner is only attempting to fish for information and without any proof and the petitioner has made wild allegations against the respondent as if she is not taking care of the minor son. She would therefore state that the Family Court has rightly dismissed the application, addressing Item 6 alone, by directing the respondent to file an affidavit disclosing her new rented premises address. The learned counsel would further state that the petitioner should in fact, appreciate the fact that though the respondent was entitled to seek for enhancement of the maintenance, considering the inflation and increase in cost of living, the respondent has not chosen to do so, but managing to maintain the minor out of her hard-earned earnings and savings.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

10. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent are separated by an order of divorce by mutual consent, close to ten years back, on 18.04.2017 in O.P.3852 of 2016. In the said proceedings, the parties had agreed to an arrangement with regard to the custody and visitation rights of the respective of

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

the petitioner and respondent in respect of minor son, Rudra Raman. The arrangement appears to have been going on smoothly until about 2024. As early as in 2025, at which point of time, the petitioner moved I.A. No.1 of 2025, seeking to modify the custody/visitation rights which were forming part of the divorce decree dated 18.04.2017.

11. Insofar as the documents 1 and 2, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is depositing Rs.10,000/- on a monthly basis in Master Rudra's account, with HDFC Bank, Santhome Branch. The allegation of the petitioner is that instead of using the said funds for the welfare of the minor son, the respondent has utilised the same for buying air tickets for going to Australia and it is only in this connection that the petitioner has sought for the bank statement as well as the fixed deposit details to establish his allegations that the respondent is misusing the maintenance amount that is being paid towards the minor son, by using it to meet her personal expenses. The Family Court, at one breath, has held that these documents are not relevant to decide the modification application. However, towards the concluding portions of the order, the Family Court has stated that the petitioner can get these documents viz., the bank statements and fixed deposit details directly from the bank and produce the same.

12. It is in this regard that Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

petitioner contended that the order will work serious hardship and prejudice to the petitioner, since even if the petitioner is successful in getting the bank statements and fixed deposit details from the banks concerned, since the Family Court found that these documents are not relevant for the purposes of I.A. No.1 of 2025, it will be an exercise in futility. I am able to see considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Sharath Chandran, in this regard. The Court should have either held that these documents are not necessary and therefore, the application could not be entertained or alternatively found that these documents are relevant but it can always be produced by the petitioner himself, getting it from the bank concerned directly.

13. In view of the conflicting findings in the impugned order, the petitioner is certainly handicapped. In fact, while addressing the issues in document in Sl.No.6, the Family Court has directed the respondent/wife to file an affidavit disclosing her new rental apartment address. Similar direction was not given with respect to Items 1 and 2, probably, because the Family Court in its opinion felt that these documents were not relevant for deciding the modification application. However, having said so, in a later portion of the very same order, the Family Court ought not to have directed the petitioner to get the said documents from the Bank directly and produce the same. In view of the above, I am inclined to set aside the findings of the Family Court, with regard to Sl.Nos.1 and 2. The best person to produce these documents relating to the

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

Minor who is in the permanent custody of the respondent/wife is the respondent. Specific allegations have been made that monies paid to the minor are being used by the respondent/wife for her personal gain/ travel. Therefore necessarily the bank accounts and fixed deposit details of the minor would become relevant to decide the application for modification, especially relating to the terms of settlement, with regard to custody/visitation of the minor son. Hence, I am inclined to set aside the order of rejection of Sl.Nos.1 and 2 as sought for by the revision petitioner.

14. Insofar as documents No.3 and 4, they are bank account statements of the respondent/wife and proof of her employment. These are personal details of the respondent/wife. The petitioner and the respondent are already separated by a decree for divorce by mutual consent. Further, on perusal of the bank account statement and fixed deposit in the name of the Minor son, Rudra Raman alone, the Court can see whether there has been any misapplication of the maintenance amount paid to the minor son every month. There is no necessity to examine the personal account statement of the respondent for ascertaining any truth in the allegation made by the petitioner with regard to the misuse of the maintenance amount. Similarly, I do not see how the proof of employment and income receipts since July 2025 of the respondent are going to aid the Court in deciding the modification application. The petitioner has asserted in the affidavit that after July 2025, the respondent/wife does not have any

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

employment. It is for the respondent to establish whether she is employed and is sufficiently earning and continues to be competent to take care of the minor son, Rudra Raman, who is under the permanent custody of the respondent. According to the respondent that the allegations are false and therefore, I do not find any necessity for the respondent to be called upon to divulge her personal financial details as sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings regarding documents in Sl.Nos.3 and 4 of Schedule in I.A. No.3 of 2026.

15. Coming to the passport of the respondent showing her travel history, in the affidavit in support of the modification application, the petitioner has specifically alleged that the petitioner travels abroad frequently, leaving the minor son under the custody of her aged parents. The respondent in the counter affidavit has not even specifically denied the claims of the petitioner that the petitioner is travelling abroad and also misusing the maintenance amount being paid by the petitioner by using the said funds for her personal expenses, including purchase of air tickets, excepting for denying the petitioner's claim that the travel record and passport are relevant to adjudication of I.A. No.1 of 2025. The Court exercises parens patriae rights over the minor child. Ultimately, it is the welfare and interest of the minor child which is paramount and therefore, when admittedly allegations are being made, not soon after the parties got separated but in the year 2025, certainly, the Court has to look into

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

whether there is any truth in such allegation and whether it could have a bearing on the prayer for modification of the custody/visitation right to be exercised over the minor son Rudra. I am therefore inclined to set aside the findings of the Family Court relating to the passport of the respondent.

16. Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam, learned counsel for the respondent would state that the minor son is aged 14 and half years and he is capable of taking independent decision and his views shall also be considered by the Family Court. Certainly, the Family Court is entitled to interact with the minor son, if the Family Court finds it necessary, before passing final orders in the modification application in I.A. No.1 of 2025.

17. In the light of the above, I am inclined to partly allowing this revision by directing the respondent/wife to produce the documents 1, 2 and 5 viz.., 1. Bank account statement of Minor Radra Raman, HDFC Account No.50100174241398, Santhome Branch, Chennai from October 2016 to till date; 2. Fixed deposits created in the name of Minor Rudra Raman from the HDFC Account No.50100174241398, Santhome Branch from October 2016 to till date; and 5. Passports of the Respondent bearing No.S1850217 showing her travel history for the period October 2017 till date, before the Family Court within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

18. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed with the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs. 09.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The III Additional Family Court, Chennai.

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

P.B.BALAJI, J. rkp CRP. No.4935 of 2026 and CMP. No.21560 of 2026 09.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-09-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 4935 of 2026 and CMP. No.21560 of 2026 CNR: {HCMA011891032026} Venkata Pattabhi Raman S/o.P.V.Raman, No.32/2, Old No.115A, Pioneer Homes, 3rd Floor, Flat 4-A, CIT colony 1st Cross Street, P.S.Sivaswamy Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 and permanent address of residence at Old No.247/3 New No.334, Ambujammmal Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. ..Petitioner(s) Vs Sowmiyah D/o.Late Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan, No.167/24 SBI Officers Colony, Saint Marys Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. ..Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Sharath Chandran For Respondent(s): Ms.Akila R S

ORDER

The matter is listed today under the caption ‘for being mentioned’.

2. It is brought to my notice that there are some typographical errors in the order dated 09.09.2026:-

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

(i) At Paragraph No.4, last preceding line of the page 2, I.A. No.3 of 2026, to be mentioned instead of I.A. No.1 of 2025 and Paragraph No.5, in line

(2) and (6), I.A. No.3 of 2026 to be mentioned instead of I.A. No.1 of 2025 and at paragraph No.7, the year to be mentioned I.A. No.3 of 2026 instead of I.A. No.3 of 2016.

(ii) At paragraph No.10, at Page No.5, 4th line, "shared custody" to be mentioned instead of custody of visitation rights and page 6, I.A. No.1 of 2025 was filed "December 2025" instead of "As early as in 2025"

(iii) At page 6, in Para 10, the 1st line "The arrangement appears to have been going on smoothly until about 2024" to be modified "According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the said arrangement was going on smoothly until about, 2024, however, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that an agreement with regard to the shared custody itself led to numerous problems which has affected the child."

(iv) At Paragraph No.13 in the 4th line, at Page 7, "a memo" to be mentioned instead of "an affidavit".

(v) At paragraph No.13, at page 8, first line, the child is in the "shared custody" instead of "permanent custody"

(vi) In para 14 at Page 9, line 3, the child is in "shared custody" instead of "permanent custody"

(vii) The learned counsel for the respondent's name to be mentioned as "Ms.Akila R S" instead of "Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam".

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

3. Except the above modifications, the order dated 09.09.2026, remains unaltered in all other aspects. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the order dated 09.09.2026 and issue a fresh order copy to the parties. 24-09-2026 RKP

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP CRP No. 4935 of 2026 and CMP. No.21560 of 2026 24-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:44:31 pm )