The welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and the Court must assess the situation to determine the interest and welfare of the child, considering changed circumstances and subsequent developments.

R.BANUMATHI, J.

The custody of minor child Rahul is the subject matter of dispute in this appeal revisions. Being aggrieved by the order of Family Court in I.A. No. 700 of 2007, the Appellant/mother filed C.M.A. No. 622 of 2010 seeking to set aside visitation rights to the Respondent. The father has filed Revisions in C.R.P. NPD. Nos. 1598 and 1599 of 2009 seeking for custody of minor child Rahul instead of visitation rights. Since common points arise for determination, by consent of both counsels, Appeal and Revisions were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Even though main point for consideration is as to what is best for the welfare of minor, to appreciate contentious points raised, it is necessary to briefly refer to the factual matrix and background of number of proceedings, which preceded the Appeal and Revision Petitions. Marriage of Appellant and Respondent was solemnised on 110. 2000 and out of lawful wedlock, male child Rahul was born on 110. 2001. Due to differences between spouses, Appellant-Wife filed H.M.O.P. No. 695 of 2004 seeking for divorce and Respondent/husband filed application G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2005 seeking for custody of child. By the intervention of well-wishers and family friends, a joint memo of compromise was filed by both parties. Based upon the joint memo of compromise, on 22. 2005, Family Court, Coimbatore passed a decree of divorce in H.M.O.P.NO.695 of 2004 and compromise was recorded in G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2005. As per memo of compromise, custody of minor child Rahul shall remain with the mother viz., Appellant herein and father/ Respondent shall be entitled to visitation rights. As per joint memo of compromise, minor Rahul was with the mother and Respondent exercised his right of visitation.

3. The Respondent re-married one Nikethana on 20.1.2006 and a girl child was born to them on 110. 2006. According to the Appellant, after 2nd marriage, the attitude of Respondent towards minor child completely changed and only servants and drivers used to come and pick up the minor child and that the child was forced to be in the company of servants of Respondent. The Appellant, a radiologist by profession moved from Coimbatore to Secunderabad along with child after giving due notice to the Respondent and child was admitted in the School at Secunderabad. After Appellant moved to Secunderabad, there were some difficulties in exercise of visitation rights. Alleging that the Respondent has re-married and out of re-marriage girl child was also born and that continuation of visitation rights will not be conducive for the welfare of the child, Appellant filed I.A. No. 700 of 2007 to set aside Clauses 2 to 7 visitation rights contained in the compromise decree. Challenging maintainability of the I.A., Respondent earlier filed C.R.P. Nos. 3856 and 3857 of 2007 and the same were disposed by the High Court directing Family Court, Coimbatore to dispose of I.A. No. 700 of 2007 within three months.

4. While I.A.NO.700 of 2007 was pending, Respondent filed I.A. No. 56 of 2009 seeking custody of the child stating that the minor child has been taken to Secunderabad and put in different environment, which would not be in the welfare of the minor child. He has also filed an application for a joint disposal of both petitions. On 24. 2009, the Family Court passed a common order in I.A. No. 700 of 2007 and I.A. No. 56 of 2009 dismissing I.A. No. 56 of 2009 filed by the Respondent. Insofar as I.A.NO.700 of 2007 filed by the Appellant, it was allowed in part and accordingly, Clause 3 of joint memo of compromise dated 22. 2005 was altered to the effect that "the petitioner shall take charge of the minor child, Rahul, at Hyderabad, on every Second Friday at 6 p.m. and after keeping the child on Saturday and Sunday, himself hand over the child on Sunday at 6 p.m. in the evening to the respondent."

5. As per the terms of compromise decree, Respondent took child Rahul on 24. 2009 for the first hal