The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in determining custody, and the court should consider the child's preference and well-being, in addition to relevant statutes and case law.

1. This application has been filed by the petitioner in the main O.P., seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents or her men or agents from interfering with the custody of the minor child Sharon Sharon Rose under the care of the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings.

2. The main O.P., has been filed by the applicant/petitioner praying for appointment of the petitioner as guardian for the person of the minor namely Sharon Rose.

3. Heard Mr.V.K.Sathyamoorthy, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.V.Ragavachary, the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit in his argument that the applicant is a retired Professor of Surgery, at CMC Hospital, Vellore, holding important post in the said College at Vellore and his wife is a Gynaecologist working as Head of the Staff Student Clinic in CMC Hospital Vellore. He would also submit that the applicant and his wife, have two daughters, one is a Teacher and another is a Doctor, working in St.Thomas Hospital, Chennai. He would further submit in his arguments that the minor child Sharon Rose, who is now aged about 12 years, has born on 29.11.1997 to the 1st respondent and her late husband Ramesh and the applicant was given the custody of the minor in an unfortunate circumstance, when the 1st respondent and her husband had attempted to commit suicide and in the attempt, the 1st respondent survived and was in a pathetic condition and during the said time, she being a patient taking treatment under the applicants wife told her sob stories and about the difficult circumstance they had and the petitioners wife took sympathy on her and consoled her and the 1st respondent being the mother of the minor child Sharon Rose and the respondents 2 and 3 who are the maternal grand parents of the child, have voluntarily baptized themselves into Christianity and the 1st respondent was seriously looking after the orphanage for admitting the minor child. However, the applicant and his wife decided to adopt the child and bring her up as their own child with intention to grow up the child in a good atmosphere with a very good education. Accordingly, a document was executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the applicant and the 1st respondent handed over the custody of the child Sharon Rose to the applicants care and guardianship. The document was duly executed by the 1st respondent and thereafter, the child was studying under the care and custody of the applicant from 2000 onwards. Recently, the 1st respondent, with the vested interest of some other 3rd parties, on their advise, threatened the applicant that the child should be handed over to her on 10.12.2009, failing which she would forcibly take the child from the custody of the applicant. If such an event would have taken place, it would be against the welfare of the child and the whereabouts of the child could also be not known and therefore, interim injunction may be granted, till the disposal of the O.P.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit in his arguments that the 1st respondent, after the death of her husband, because the natural guardian of the minor and the legal right accrued on her, cannot be measured by an order of injunction. He would further submit that the applicant is claiming the right of the custody of the minor child, by virtue of the adoption deed, which is not at all valid in law. He would further submit that there is no semblance of right which the applicant had over the child and the actual name of the child was Akilandeswari, but however, she was converted into Christianity and she was named as Sharon Rose, which is not correct. Similarly, he would also submit that the 1st respondent name is only Vijayalakshmi and she has not been converted to Christianity and her name was also falsely mentioned as Sarah Vijayalakshmi. He would further submit in his arguments that the 1st respondent is working as a nurse, afte