Gokulakrishnan, J. — O.S.A. No. 3 of 1971 is against the judgment of Maharajan, J. in O.P. No. 270 of 1970 filed by

Jacob A. Chakramakkal against Mrs. Rosy J. Chakramakkal, under the Guardians and Wards Act VIII of 1890, for

custody of his three children.

2. O.S.A. No. 2 of 1971 is against the judgment of the same learned Judge in Applications Nos. 12, 1259, 1260, 2503

of 1968, 337, 759, 840, 968, 1466, 1729, 1730, 1731 of 1969 and 278, 1156 1372 and 2629 of 1970 filed in

O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962 and C.M.P. No. 15737 of 1968 filed in O.S.A. Nos. 63 and 65 of 1964., and Applications

Nos. 1383 of 1968, 215, 216, 1014, 1406 of 1969 and 1595, 1969 of 1970 filed in O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962.

3. The various applications, aforementioned, (except O.P. No. 270 of 1970) were filed as an off-shoot of O.M.S. No.

12 of 1962. In O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962, Mrs. Rosy Chakramakkal(the respondent in the appeals under consideration)

obtained a decree for judicial separation from her husband, Jacob Chakramakkal (the appellant in the appeals under

consideration) on the ground that he had inflicted upon her several acts of physical, mental and moral cruelty. The

decree (granted by Sadasivam, J.) directed that Ajit alias Andrews, the eldest child of the marriage, should be kept in

the custody of the appellant herein, that Mary alias Maya and Thomas alias Mahesh, the second and third children of the

marriage, be kept in the custody of the respondent herein and that the appellant herein should pay the respondent herein

Rs. 200 per mensem towards the expenses of her maintenance and of her last two children. Subsequent to the decree,

the respondent herein filed Application No. 2076 of 1964 before Sadasivam, J. for a direction that Ajit alias Andrews

should also be handed over to her, or, in the alternative, for a direction to have him admitted in a Boarding School,

alleging that because Ajit had accepted from her the present of a fountain pen, the appellant herein beat him and caused

him injuries. This allegation was denied by the Appellant herein. Sadasivam, J., after an enquiry, recorded the finding

that there was no doubt that the appellant had caused injuries to the boy Ajit alias Andrews on account of his sudden

outburst of temper on learning that the boy had received the present of a fountain pen from his mother on his birth day.

Consequently, the learned Judge directed that the eldest boy, Ajit alias Andrews, should also be handed over to his

mother subject to certain conditions.

4. The appellant herein filed an appeal against the direction in Application No. 2076 of 1964 as O.S.A. No. 63 of

1964, and another appeal against the decree in O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962 as O.S.A. No. 65 of 1964. These two appeals

were heard by Veeraswami, J. (as he then was) and Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. It appears that the parties had come to a

settlement before the appellate Bench. In consequence of the settlement, the Bench directed:

“..There should be no slur on the part of either the appellant or the respondent because of the several proceedings in

Court or other happenings outside. The decree for judicial separation which is confirmed does not cast any cloud on the

reputation or character of the husband or the wife”.

5. As to the custody of the children, the Bench directed:

“The second child Mary alias Maya will be put to school in Rosary Matriculation School and as a resident-boarder at

San Thome Convent. The tuition fee and the boarding and other charges or expenses relating to this child will be met

half and half by the parents, that is to say, they will each meet the monthly expenses every alternate month”. “The last

boy, Thomas alias Mahesh, will be in the custody of the mother and will be educated by her at her expense. The eldest

boy, Andrews alias Ajit, will be in the custody of his father and will be educated by him at his expenses”.

The Bench gave certain directions as regards access to the children by the respective parties. As regards alimony

payable by the appellant to the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document