1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.421 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Rasool Bibi .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. Sheik Dawood .. Respondent/Defendant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 47(a) of Guardianship and Wards Act against the condition in Clause (2) of the decree and the same condition in para(7) of the Judgment dated 03.02.2007 passed in GWOP.No.63 of 2002 by the First Additional District Court (PCR) Tiruchirapalli. For Appellant : Mr.Dhanaseelan For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan JUDGMENT The order dated 03.02.2007 passed in GWOP.No.63 of 2002 by the First Additional District Court (PCR) Tiruchirapalli is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The appellant as petitioner has filed GWOP.No.63 of 2002 on the file of the Court below praying to appoint her as guardian of the minor by name Amina Beevi, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole respondent. 3. It is averred in the petition that the younger daughter of the petitioner has been given in marriage to the respondent on 08.05.1997 and she has given birth to the ward in question and subsequently she committed suicide due to ill-treatment caused by the respondent. The respondent has faced criminal trial, wherein he has been convicted. Now the ward is under the care and custody of the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for the relief sought for therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent it is averred that the petitioner is a stranger and she cannot act as guardian of the minor in question. The respondent is the only person who is competent to take care of the ward. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. On the basis of the rival evidence adduced on either side, the Court below has allowed the petition and thereby appointed the petitioner as guardian of the ward and the Court below has permitted the respondent to see the ward in question once in a month in the house of the petitioner. Further the Court below has directed that if any problem arises in seeing the ward at the house of the petitioner, the petitioner has to make some arrangements so as to see the ward. Against the condition imposed by the Court below with regard to visitorial right of the respondent, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has sparingly contended that the appellant/petitioner is always ready and willing to allow the respondent to see the ward in her house. But the Court below has unnecessarily directed the appellant/petitioner to make some other arrangements so as to enable the respondent to see the ward. Under the said circumstances, the condition imposed by the Court below upon the appellant/petitioner is liable to be set aside. 7. It is an admitted fact that the second daughter of the petitioner has been given in marriage to the respondent and she has given birth to the ward in question and subsequently she committed suicide due to alleged ill-treatment caused by the respondent. It is also equally an admitted fact that the ward in question is now under the care and custody of the petitioner. The petitioner is nothing but maternal grandmother of the ward. 8. The Court below after considering the existing circumstances in the present case, has allowed the petition and thereby appointed the petitioner as guardian of the ward. At the same time, the Court below has given visitorial right to the respondent. 9. As rightly pointed out on the side of the appellant/petitioner, the Court below has given visitorial right to the respondent to the effect that the respondent is entitled to see the ward in the house of the petitioner or if any problem arises, the petitioner has to make some other alternative arrangements. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has contended that the appellant/petitioner is always ready to permit the respondent to see the ward in her house. 11. Considering the stand taken on the side of the appellant/petitioner, the respondent can easily be permitted to see the ward in question once in a month at the house of the petitioner. The petitioner should not cause any hindrance so as to debilitate the visitorial right of the respondent. With the above observations, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be disposed of. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 12. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of on the basis of the observations mentioned supra. However, it is made clear that the respondent is entitled to see the ward in question once in a month in the house of the appellant /petitioner. The appellant/petitioner is strictly directed that she should not to cause any disturbance nor hindrance to the respondent. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The First Additional District Court (PCR) Tiruchirapalli +1cc to Mr.C.Dhanaseelan, Advocate Sr.No.21916 mj ssk/20.07.2011 /3c-3p/- C.M.A(MD)No.421 of 2011 06.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/