The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in determining custody, and the court has the discretion to make decisions based on the child's best interests.

This Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act by the father of the minor children M.J.Kishore and M.J.Poornima.

2. The first respondent is the father-in-law and the second respondent is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was that he got married to one Nagasubbu according to the Hindu Rites and Customs on 22.08.1993. After their marriage, a matrimonial home was set up at No.1, Sembangi Nagar, Thirunindravur. The petitioner was employed in Muscat at that time in Oil Rig and hence, he left his wife with his mother and sisters. The petitioners wife left the matrimonial home without any justification. At the instigation of respondents, a criminal complaint was given by his wife to the All Women Police Station, Avadi.

3. Pursuant to the reconciliation among the family members, the petitioner set up a separate matrimonial home at No.8, Chitraiveedhi, Annanur and were living in the said place. When the petitioner and his wife were living together, she got conceived. Due to advanced stage of pregnancy, she went to her parents house. She gave birth to a male child on 31.07.1996 and they named him M.J.Kishore. After giving birth to the child, she never returned from the parents house which led to the petitioner in filing an application for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P.No.42 of 1997.

4. The petitioners wife filed a counter statement in the said OP. After some conciliation proceedings before the Family Court, the petitioner again set up another matrimonial house at Thirunindravur and they lived together for 20 months. During that time, the first son was studying in a school at Thirunindravur. A second female child was born on 010. 1999. It was stated that during March 2000, her health condition became worse. On 08.07.2000, the petitioner received a telegram from the first respondent stating that his wife was in a critical condition. On 14.07.2000, his wife died. After the funeral rites were performed on 15.07.2000, the petitioner demanded the custody of the children which was not given to him and the children were taken away by the respondents. The petitioner lodged a police complaint on 22.07.2000.

5. It was further stated that when the first respondents wife died, the first respondent was a retired government servant and was getting a meagre amount towards pension whereas, the petitioner was earning a good salary. It was stated that the petitioner has a mother, who is a widow and four unmarried sisters and therefore, the children should grow up in their company. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the petitioner being the father and the natural guardian of the children is entitled to have the custody of the minor children.

6. The respondents have filed a counter statement denying the allegations. It was stated by the first respondent that he was a retired central government servant and he has four daughters and two sons. The four daughters were already married and three daughters are living happily. It is only the second daughter, (who is the wife of the petitioner) never had a good life. In fact she was ill-treated by the petitioners mother and sisters. They were harassing her with a demand for dowry. Even the first respondent, being the father was not allowed to meet her. He received several letters from his daughter that she was tortured and ill-treated by the in-laws and that she was treated like a servant maid. While all the sisters and mother of the petitioner will sit idle and enjoy watching Television, it is only the respondents daughter who had to cook and clean the vessels and take care of all the nine members of the family.

7. Due to counseling, an independent matrimonial home was set up by the petitioner twice, wherein the two children were born. But the cruelty continued. After the birth of the second female child, the condition of his daughter became weak and she was not attended to by the petitioner. She was admitted at B.R