The interest and welfare of the minor children are of paramount importance in custody disputes, and the court must consider the ability and willingness of the parties to provide a healthy environment, good parental care and guidance, and physical, emotional, and financial support for the children's integrated personality development.

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by the father of two minor children by name S. Kishore Kumar and S. Praveen Kumar. The mother of the minor children is the respondent herein.

2. The petitioner took out an application in A. No. 1858 of 2006 for interim custody of the minor children, for the vacation in May 2006, on the ground that the orders passed in earlier applications for visitation rights and for interim custody in A.No.4773 of 2003 and A.No.4641 of 2005 were actually frustrated. In the said application A.No.1858 of 2006. I passed an interim order, permitting the petitioner to take interim custody of the minor children on 20.4.2007 and return the children on 24. 2007. On the ground that the said order was disobeyed, the petitioner took out a contempt petition in Contempt Petition No.447 of 2007.

3. However, upon finding that both parties have already adduced evidence and the Original Petition itself was ripe for final disposal, I directed the learned counsel appearing for both sides to file written arguments, so that the Original Petition itself could be disposed of. Accordingly, Ms. lima Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent filed their written submissions. Hence, the Original Petition itself is disposed of by this order.

4. From the averments contained in the Original Petition and the counter filed by the respondent, it is seen that the following facts are not disputed:-

.(a) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised at Vellore on 11. 1987. The minor S. Kishore Kumar was born on 14. 1990 and the minor S. Praveen Kumar was horn on 20.5.1994.

.(b) The petitioner is employed in the Managerial Cadre in the State Bank of India. The respondent is not employed anywhere, though she claims to be running a Computer Centre at Nanganallur.

.(c) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has not so far been dissolved by a decree of divorce, though it appears from the allegations traded by them against each other, that the marriage is irretrievably broken.

5. In brief, the averments contained in the petition are that the respondent suffered from an absolute negative attitude from the date of the marriage, leading to unpredictable behavioural pattern, which included abuses. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent always suspected his fidelity and caused many embarrassing situations when they lived together at Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri, Coimbatore, Tirunelveii and Tenkasi. According to the petitioner, the respondent suffered from delusions and hallucinations and always charged the petitioner of having illicit intimacy with any women whom he came across. The petitioner has narrated a few incidents in paragraph-10 of the petition, to highlight the mental aberrations that, the respondent had. In April 2002, the respondent forcibly took the children away from the matrimonial home at Tenkasi. After great efforts, the petitioner found the children in Don Bosco School, Peravallur. Since he did not want to disturb the children, the petitioner opened a bank account in State Bank of India, Perambur Branch and asked the elder son to operate the account. But the respondent started effectively preventing the petitioner even from having access to the children. Even phone calls were disconnected and the respondent started brain washing the children, forcing the petitioner to come up with the present original petition.

6. The respondent has filed a counter, alleging cruelty against the petitioner. She has stated that the petitioner used to come home late in the night in an inebriated mood and that lie was womaniser. The respondent claims to have seen the petitioner in the company of other woman at Tirunelveli. According to the respondent, an Assistant Manager of the State Bank of India, Tirunelveli Branch, insisted on the