High CourtsSingle Bench

Navaneeth Madhavan vs J.Nandhini

Madras High Court · Decided on 22 May 2026 · Citation: (2026) 05 MAD CK 1309

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 1106, 2125 Of 2026 In Original Petition No. 223 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 724 words

V. Lakshminarayanan, J

1.

The reliefs sought for in both these applications are more or less identical. One seems to have been moved before the vacation seeking direction from the court to take custody of the child from 14th April 2026 to 31st May 2026. The second application has been moved during the vacation seeking interim custody of the child from 15th May 2026 to 05th June 2026.

2.

When these applications were taken up by this Court on 14.05.2026, a representation was made by Mr.Nithianandam that the child has gone for an "educational tour" to New Delhi. Hence, the matter was listed before this Court on 20.05.2026. On that date, it was represented that the child is still in New Delhi. This Court shared the same view as taken by Mr.Justice N.Senthilkumar as to how the child of 3 ½ years old went to New Delhi for an educational tour. Hence, a direction was given calling upon the respondent to be present before this Court, together with the child, on 22.05.2026. The applicant was also called upon to be present.

3.

In obedience to the direction, the parties were present before the Court.

4.

I have interacted with both the applicant as well as the respondent. Being a petition under Guardian and Wards Act, this court is concerned only with the best interests of the child. The child seems to be comfortable with the company of the father and the mother is also not averse to the father spending quality time with the child. Her only apprehension was that the child might not be taken care of in a proper manner, when he is in the custody of the applicant.

5.

Mrs.K.Sumathi representing the applicant states that on an earlier occasion i.e., on 12.04.2026, the child had stayed overnight with the father and did not report any discomfort. Mr.Nithianandam, too, states that the statement of Mrs.K.Sumathi is correct.

6.

The respondent, Mrs.Nandhini, states that the child had reported that it had fallen down in the bathroom and adequate medical treatment had not been given to it. Mr.Navaneeth Madhavan states that it was a minor incident which happened, as in the case of any other child. He states that he had inspected the child and did not find any bruise at the time of fall and left it as it is. I am inclined to accept the version as given by Mr.Navaneeth Madhavan.

7.

It is not in dispute that the child is in the custody of the mother. The child must not be in a situation that he grows up without knowing as to who his father is and how his father treats him. As already pointed out, Mrs.Nandhini is not averse to the child spending some time with the father, but she only suffers from an apprehension about the child spending a prolonged period as sought for in the application.

8.

She also states that her father, Mr.Jaganathan is due to retire in July 2026 and that her paternal family is going to settled down at Thiruppukuzhi in Kancheepuram District. She states that she had also made an arrangement to admit the child at Janus Global Senior Secondary School at Kilambi. This place is very close to Thiruppukuzhi. She states that the interaction between herself and the school authorities is to take place on 24.05.2026.

9.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court passes the following directions:

(i) Both the applicant and the respondent will go over to the aforesaid school, along with the child, at 9 am or some other time, that the school calls for an appearance of the parents of the child on 24.05.2026.

(ii) After the interaction is over, the child will be with the father on 24.05.2026, 25.05.2026 and 26.05.2026.

(iii) During the time the child is with the father, the mother will be entitled to make phone calls/video calls to interact with the child. The applicant/father shall not obstruct the call so made and make the child communicate with the mother so as to give her the assurance as to how well the child is faring at his father's house.

(iv) Depending upon how the child is faring in the custody of the father, this court will decide about the further extension for 27.05.2026, 28.05.2026 and 29.05.2026.

10.

Call these applications on 27.05.2026