2014 Supreme(Kar) 257
High Court of Karnataka
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
Ajay Rajasekhar
Versus
Tripti
Writ Petition No. 45159 of 2013 (GM-FC)
Decided on : 20-03-2014
For the Petitioner:M.P. Geetha Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P.B. Appaiah, Advocate.
The welfare and interest of the minor child/children is the paramount consideration in custody matters.
Headnote:
Custody - Minor Children - Welfare of the Child
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought interim custody of his minor children, alleging that he was well qualified and financially capable of providing for them, while the respondent was not taking proper care of the children. The respondent opposed the application, stating that the petitioner had not previously taken care of the children and was not entitled to interim custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the welfare and interest of the minor children as the paramount consideration. It found that the children were being well looked after by the respondent and, therefore, directed the respondent to grant visitation rights to the petitioner at a different location and time.
Issues: The main issue was the interim custody of the minor children and the welfare of the children.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the welfare of the child is the primary consideration in custody matters, and each case must be decided based on its own facts and circumstances.
Final Decision: The court modified the visitation arrangements, allowing the petitioner to meet the children at a different location and time, and disposed of the writ petition.
1. The petitioner filed G&WC. No. 153/2013 against the respondent on the file of the II Additional, Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, for appointing him as a guardian of the minor children viz., Master Dheer and Kumari. Mischa till they attain the age of 18 years and to grant him full custody of both the minor children. In the said case, he filed an application - I.A.No.2 for grant of an interim custody of the minor children. The application was opposed by the respondent. On consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the Court below has allowed the application on 26.08.2013 by granting him the visitation right of the children in the premises of Bangalore Mediation Centre on 1st and 3rd Saturday of every month between 02:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner being the father of the children is well qualified and financially well placed to take care of his children and provide them with a good and health environment. He comes from a good background. His parents are ready to take care of their grand children as they are available in his home. The respondent is not taking care of the children properly. The Court below therefore ought to have granted the custody of the minor children to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the timing fixed for meeting the children at the Mediation Centre between 02:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m. is highly inconvenient. The Mediation Centre is over crowded on Saturdays. Therefore, it is impossible to spend time with the children.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not taken care of the children at any point of time. He has riot cared to pay their school fee. The children are of tender age. Her daughter Mischa is an adopted child. The petitioner is not entitled for interim custody of the children. It is further submitted that the respondent is looking after their children very well. If the petitioner wants to visit the children in some other place, she has no objection to visit them at Bangalore club wherein she is a member. There is enough space in the said club and it is not even crowded. The respondent will facilitate the petitioner to meet the children.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner after taking instructions from the petitioner who is present before the Court submits that henceforth petitioner will pay the school fee of both children. The submission is placed on record.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel made at the bar and perused the materials placed on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein has filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner on the ground of cruelty. Serious allegations are made by the parties against each other in the said case as also in G&WC. No. 153/2013. These questions hove to be decided by the Family Court while deciding the divorce petition as also G&WC No.153/2013. The 1st child namely Master Dheer is now aged about 09 years. The daughter Mischa is aged about 41/? years is an adopted daughter. It is well established that even while considering the grant of interim custody of the minor child/children, the first and paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the minor child/children and not the rights of the parents under a statue. The question of welfare, of the child has to be considered in the background of the relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. Having considered the contentions of the parties and perused the materials on record. I am of the view that it is not just and proper to give custody of the minor children to the petitioner. They are looked after by the respondent very well. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has directed the respondent to grant visitation right of the chi