K.P.K.Sathish Kumar v. Dr.S.Surthi Priyadarsini

ORDER Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/husband and Mr.P.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶2The petitioner/husband challenges the order in I.A.No.2 of 2023 granting visitation rights once fortnightly, every Sunday between 10.30 a.m and 11.30 a.m in a common place near the wife's residence.

¶3Learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to the fact that the petitioner had originally sought for interim custody of the minor child, however, restricted the prayer for visitation alone. Despite the fair concession shown by the petitioner/husband, the learned II Additional Principal Family Court, has granted visitation right only for an hour, fortnightly.

¶4Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that said one hour would be highly insufficient and also inadequate for proper bonding between the father and the child.

¶5Learned counsel for the respondents states that the child is not comfortable staying long hours with the father/petitioner and therefore, the Family Court has rightly ordered visitation, restricting the timing to one hour, on a every fortnightly basis.

¶6I have gone through the records and also keep in mind the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel and the counsel for the respondent. I find that the child is now aged 6 years and admittedly, the child is in the custody of the first respondent/mother. The petitioner has sought for interim custody of the minor child even in the year 2023 by filing I.A.No.2 of 2023. However, pending the said proceedings, the petitioner/husband has informed the Court that he would be satisfied, if visitation rights are given. The Family Court ought to have seen that the visitation rights which has been accorded to the father should be reasonable and sufficient for the father and the child to interact and a bond to be forged, which is necessary for the proper welfare of the minor child.

¶7In the light of the above, considering the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent, the order passed in I.A.2 of 2023 is set aside and modified in the following manner:

¶1The petitioner/father shall have visitation rights of the minor child K.S.Shrinidhi, once every fortnight, on Sunday between 10.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m at V.R.Mall, Anna Nagar.

¶2The first respondent/mother of the child shall cooperate with the said visitation rights being accorded to the petitioner/father of the child and shall ensure that the visitation rights every fortnightly shall go on smoothly.

¶3The paternal grand parents of the child shall also be entitled to accompany the petitioner once in a month to see the child.

¶8Considering the O.P.No.4378 of 2022 is pending from II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, the learned II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai is directed to dispose of O.P.No.4378 of 2022 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9With the above direction, the revision petition is disposed of. No costs.

22.08.2025 Index: Yes/No Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr To The II Additional Principal Family Court, Channai P.B.BALAJI.,J sr

22.08.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-08-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI K.P.K.Sathish Kumar ... Petitioner Vs 1.Dr.S.Sruthi Priyadarsini 2.S.Srinith (Minor) (under the custody of the mother) ... Respondents Revision filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order of the II Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai dated 29.01.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in OP No.4378 of 2022 and grant order as prayed for in the main I.A.No.2 of 2023. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel For Mr.V.Neethidurai For Respondents: Mr.P.Srinivasan