Krishnakumar Parameswaran and another vs Akash Sharma

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 01.10.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.11.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
P . No. O. 659 of 20 25
CNR: {HCMA012778612025}
1. Krishnakumar Parameswaran
C/o. Saradha Balasubramnian,
8, 1st Floor, Logambal Street, Radha nagar,
West Tambaram, Tambaram, Kancheepuram,
Tamil Nadu 600 045.
2. Rennee Saradha
D/o. Saradha B,
8, 1st Floor Logambal Street,
Radha Nagar,
West Tambaram, Tambaram,
Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu 600 045.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Akash Sharma
191-192, Nemj Sagar Enclave,
Nemi Sagar Colony Vishali Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302 021.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Original Petition filed under Section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 read with Order XXI Rule 2 & 4 of the Original Side rules Clause XVII of
Letters and Patent Act praying to declare the petitioners as the Joint Guardians
of the person of minor Siarah.
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
For Petitioner(s): Rohini Ravikumar
Mahesh Kumar
K.Harish Narayanan
R.Kamalesh
Lokesh Kumar P.K.
Thamizhan.S.P
R.Soundarya Lakshmi
R.Ananthakavibarathan
M/s.Subhalakshmi Samanta
HLSC Counsel
For Respondent(s): No appearance.
O R D E R
This Original Petition is filed under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890, read with Order XXI Rules 2 and 4 of the Original Side Rules and Clause
17 of the Letters Patent, seeking a declaration that the petitioners are joint
guardians of the person of the minor girl born on 16.10.2021. The second
petitioner is the child’s mother. The first petitioner is her present husband and,
on the pleaded basis that he is the child’s stepfather, seeks relief.
2. The petitioners married on 24.08.2017. According to them, they lived
separately from September 2019, and their marriage was dissolved by mutual
consent on 12.08.2021 in O.P.No.2534 of 2021 before the IV Additional Family
Court, Chennai. The divorce decree records that no child was born of the
Page 2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
marriage and that the second petitioner, who was then pregnant, stated that the
first petitioner was not the father of the unborn child.
3. The minor girl was born on 16.10.2021. Her birth certificate, marked
Ex.P1, lists the second petitioner as her mother and the respondent as her father.
The petitioners allege that the respondent’s contact with the child ceased when
she was about ten months old, and that he thereafter provided neither financial
support nor parental care.
4. The petitioners state that they reconciled in 2022 and thereafter lived
together with the minor girl. Their younger daughter was born on 12.01.2024.
They remarried on 11.05.2025, and the marriage was subsequently registered.
According to their evidence, the first petitioner has been attending to the minor
girl’s education, health, maintenance and daily needs, and the minor girl shares
a close emotional relationship with him and her younger sister.
5. After attempts at service and newspaper publication, the respondent did
not appear and was set ex parte. The petitioners were examined as P.W.1 and
P.W.2, and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. Given the nature of the relief and its
Page 3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
implications for the child, this Court secured independent legal representation
for her and obtained reports from the learned Legal Aid Counsel, a counsellor
and a psychologist.
6. The reports describe the minor girl as comfortable in her present
household and emotionally attached to both petitioners. They also record the
first petitioner’s involvement in her upbringing and the support available within
the family. The material before this Court discloses no circumstances that
warrant disturbing her present care or residence.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that joint guardianship would
recognise the responsibilities already undertaken by the first petitioner and
facilitate decisions regarding the minor girl’s education, passport, travel and
other matters. Reliance is placed on the child’s welfare, the respondent’s alleged
abandonment, the order dated 19.12.2023 in O.P.No.495 of 2021, and the
judgment in T.P. Vasanth v. R. Lakshmi Narasimhan , O.P.No.797 of 2017, dated
26.05.2020.
Page 4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
8. The following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the petitioners are entitled to appointment or declaration as joint
guardians of the minor girl's person?
(ii) What consequential order is warranted in the interests and welfare of the
minor girl?
Point No.(i):
9. The second petitioner has expressly stated, both in the earlier divorce
proceedings and in the present proceedings, that the respondent is the biological
father of the minor girl. The petitioners also state that they have lived separately
since September 2019. Nevertheless, because the child was born within 280
days of the dissolution of their marriage, Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023, corresponding to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, requires consideration. An admission of an extramarital relationship is
not, by itself, proof of non-access between the spouses during the period of
conception. It is unnecessary to determine that question in this petition, since
the prayer for joint guardianship can be decided on the admitted position that
the child’s mother is alive and is not unfit to act as her guardian. Accordingly,
no finding affecting the child’s legitimacy or legal parentage is rendered.
Page 5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
10. Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act empowers the Court to appoint
or declare a guardian where the statutory requirements are met. Section 15(1)
permits the appointment or declaration of two or more joint guardians of the
person, property, or both, where the law applicable to the minor permits such an
arrangement. Joint guardianship is therefore not confined to the management of
property. However, Section 15 does not confer an unrestricted power and must
be read with the other provisions governing appointment.
11. Section 19(b), as amended by the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act,
2010, restricts the appointment or declaration of a guardian of the person of a
minor whose father or mother is alive and, in the opinion of the Court, is not
unfit to be the minor’s guardian. In the present case, the mother is alive,
personally cares for the child, and supports this petition. No allegation of her
unfitness is made. On the contrary, the evidence and professional reports show
that she attends to the child’s needs.
12. On the petitioners’ pleaded case that the child was born outside marriage,
Section 6(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, recognises the
mother as the first natural guardian of the minor child. Her subsequent marriage
Page 6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
does not, by itself, terminate that position. The Explanation to Section 6
excludes a stepfather from the expression “father”. Consequently, on the basis
on which the first petitioner seeks relief, marriage to the mother and
participation in the child’s upbringing do not, by themselves, confer natural
guardianship upon him.
13. The mother’s consent to the proposed arrangement does not remove the
restriction under Section 19(b). Nor can that restriction be avoided by seeking
the appointment of the first petitioner jointly with her. The respondent’s failure
to appear does not establish entitlement to the relief sought; even in an
uncontested proceeding, the Court must independently examine the legal basis
for the relief. Whatever conclusion might otherwise arise regarding the
respondent’s alleged non-participation, the mother’s admitted fitness remains
material under Section 19(b).
14. The paramount importance of the minor’s welfare under Section 17 of the
Guardians and Wards Act and Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act is fully recognised. Welfare remains central to the Court’s
consideration of the child’s care and any appropriate protective relief. However,
Page 7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
it does not render every form of appointment legally available. Guardianship,
custody and participation in daily care have distinct legal consequences, and
beneficial caregiving does not, by itself, establish entitlement to a judicial
appointment as guardian.
15. The order dated 19.12.2023 in O.P.No.495 of 2021, relied upon by the
petitioners, granted guardianship to a mother and her subsequent husband.
However, that order does not examine the restriction under Section 19(b) or its
application to the proposed appointment alongside a living and fit mother. It
therefore cannot be treated as determining the statutory objection arising in the
present case. Further, the joint-custody direction in T.P. Vasanth was modified
by the Division Bench in R. Lakshmi Narasimhan v. T.P. Vasanth , O.S.A.No.230
of 2020, dated 21.10.2024. The Division Bench confined that custody direction
to the biological mother, leaving the other portions of the order intact.
Consequently, the original joint-custody direction cannot support the relief now
sought. It is right to record that I was a member of the Division Bench which
decided O.S.A.No.230 of 2020, and that the written arguments filed for the
petitioners do not refer to that judgment.
Page 8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
16. The petition also invokes this Court’s protective jurisdiction under Clause
17 of the Letters Patent, preserved by Section 3 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
The claim has therefore been considered independently on the basis of the
minor girl’s welfare. This Court understands what lies behind this petition. The
petitioners would have the minor girl’s records show the first petitioner as her
father, and the difficulties they speak of are real. But that is not something an
order under Section 7 can achieve. Entries in the public records are governed by
their own law, and no appointment or declaration of guardianship alters any of
them. There is also a better reason. The name upon her record carries rights
which are hers and not her parents’, and whether one day to keep them or to
question them is a choice that belongs to her. It is for that reason that Section
116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, has been noticed and no finding
upon her parentage has been made. Nothing has been closed to her. Even
assuming that the preserved jurisdiction permits relief beyond the appointment
available under Chapter II of the Act, the answer is the same. The child’s settled
care and beneficial relationships can continue without conferring that status on
the first petitioner. In fine, Point No. (i) is answered against the petitioners.
Point No. (ii).
17. The refusal of joint guardianship does not require any change. The first
petitioner may continue to assist with the child’s care with the mother’s
Page 9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
concurrence. Where the applicable requirements permit, the second petitioner
may authorise the first petitioner to attend to such matters concerning the minor
girl’s upbringing, education, health and daily activities as the second petitioner
may think fit. However, such authorisation does not transfer guardianship or
substitute his consent where the law requires the consent of a parent or legal
guardian.
18. The professional reports support the continuation of the existing
caregiving arrangement and disclose no current circumstances requiring
periodic court-directed supervision. Accordingly, no continuing monitoring is
ordered. The reports shall remain confidential, subject to lawful access and any
further orders of this Court. Nothing in this order restricts the powers of the
competent authorities to act to protect the child if circumstances subsequently
warrant intervention. Accordingly, this point is answered.
19. This Court records its appreciation of the assistance rendered by the
learned Legal Aid Counsel Ms Subhalaxmi Samanta, the counsellor Ms Neya
Santro R and the psychologist Tmt. M. Malathi
20. Accordingly, the prayer for the appointment or declaration of the
petitioners as joint guardians of the minor girl's person is declined, and the
Original Petition is dismissed. It is, however, recorded that nothing in this order
Page 10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
prevents the first petitioner from continuing to care for the minor girl with the
concurrence of the second petitioner. No order as to costs shall be made.
03-11-2026
AY
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
List of witnesses examined on the side of the Petitioners:
PW1 –Krishnakumar Parameswaran
PW2 –Rennee Saradha.
List of documents marked on the side of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 Photocopy of the birth certificate of minor Siarah.A (compared with
the original)
Ex.P2 Computer generated birth certificate of minor Jodha Jagattarini.K.R.
Ex.P3 Photocopy of the order dated 12.08.2021 in O.P. No. 2534 of 2021
passed by IV Additional Family Court, Chennai (compared with the
original)
Ex.P4 Photocopy of my marriage registration certificate (compared with
the original)
Ex.P5 E-mail communication dated 24.01.2025 sent by the Pupil
International School.
Ex.P6 Photocopy of my Aadhaar Card (compared with the original)
Ex.P7 Declaration of willingness
Ex.P8 Certificate filed under Section 63 (4)(c) of BSA.
Ex.P9 Photocopy of my Aadhaar card (compared with the original)
Page 11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
List of witnesses examined on the side of the Respondent: Nil
List of documents marked on the side of the Respondent: Nil
03.11.2026
ay
Page 12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )

O.P. No. 659 of 2025
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J
AY
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN
O.P. No. 659 of 2025
03-11-2026
Page 13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:43:16 pm )