SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 5090

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
P. Senthil Kumar
Versus
R. Sunitha
C.M.A.No.650 of 2007 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008
Decided On : 30-11-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:G. Rajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Shanmugasundaran, SC for M/s. Saravanan, Advocate.

Headnote:A. GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT, 1890 - SECTION 17 AND HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 - SECTION 6 & 7 -

       Relevant factors to be considered In proceedings of custody and guardianship - HELD, findings rendered in earlier proceedings between parties, aspects of love and affection, failure to provide maintenance, care and comfort to minor, child allegations about parentage of child, and immovable life and wife are all relevant factors to be considered in the proceeding for custody and guardianship. (Para 21).

       Allegation of Cruelty -

       HELD, mere allegation that respondent suppressed early marriage and so not entitled to guardianship and custody, is not acceptable in evidence (Para 22).

       Paramount Welfare of Child -

       Depends on many factors like means to bring up child, socio economic condition and includes conduct and character of person - Such conduct, HELD never reflected bona fides claiming guardianship who has to raise that till attainment of puberty - financial resources is not the only criterion determining custody (Para 84).

       Consideration of view of minor -

       It is well settled that courts can consider views of minors also in deciding custody and guardianship - On facts minor opted to be with mother - Though respondent got remarried there is no complaint from child that remarriage has affected his mental condition or education - Since child had lived with mother entirely for many fears separation from mother would affect mental condition of child (Para 86).

       Maintenance -

       Continuous - default in payment of maintenance by husband, was failure to discharge moral obligations in providing basic needs like food, shelter, education to minor son.

       B. CRUELTY - Effect on custody of child - See Guardians Act, Section 17

       C. CUSTODY - Welfare of child - See Guardians Act, Section 17

       D. CUSTODY - Consideration of view of minor - See Guardians Act, Section 17

       Result: Order of finally court affirmed in CMA.

Judgment :-

1. This appeal is directed against the order and decree made in GWOP.No.534 of 2004, dated 23.12.2004 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the petitioner and respondent.

3. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows:

Marriage between the parties was solemnised on 29.04.1994, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and it was registered in the Office of the Registrar, Erode. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born. At that time, the petitioner was the owner of Oil Tanker lorries and doing business in the Coimbatore. Due to strained relationship, the respondent left the matrimonial home and filed M.C.No.245 of 2001 for maintenance in the Family Court, Chennai. The application was dismissed for default, since the respondent did not attend the Court. Thereafter, the respondent filed a Divorce Petition before the Family Court, Coimbatore, with false and untenable allegations. The petition was resisted. During the course of litigation, though the petitioner repeatedly demanded for the custody of the child, but the respondent refused to hand over the child. According to him, the respondent was living with her parents separately and that the minor child was a hosteller in Ooty, without any love and care.

4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that though he had made several attempts to see the minor child, all his attempts were in vain and that he was not even permitted to see his child in the hostel. As the respondent has not provided due care and attention to the child and not brought him in good atmosphere and considering the welfare of the child, he was constrained to file a petition under the Guardian Wards Act, for custody. The petitioner has further submitted that he is ready and willing to give all his attention, love and affection to the child, education in a good school and provide all the best, for the welfare of the child.

5. Mother of the child, resisted the petition, contending inter alia that the petitioner has no interest for the welfare of the child and that he has not even mentioned the date of birth of the child in the petition. She further submitted that she was ill-treated and harassed at the hands of the petitioner and therefore, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. According to her, the child is given the best of education and as a mother, she has put in all her efforts, to provide everything that the child requires. She has denied the contention that as a hosteller, the child has lost the love and affection. She further contended that when the petitioner has refused to provide even reasonable maintenance to herself and the child, she was constrained to prefer M.C.No.245 of 2001 on the file of the Family Court, Chennai, but at that time, she was studying her Secretarial Course and subsequently, shifted to Ooty. In the said circumstances, she could not appear before the Family Court and consequently, the petition ended in dismissal for non-appearance. It is her contention that the petitioner had not shown any love and affection to her or to the minor son and for the abovesaid reasons, sought for dismissal of the Guardian Petition.

6. Before the Family Court, Chennai, in addition to the petitioner, Mr.Senthil Kumar and Mr.Palaniappan, were examined as Pws.1 and 2 respectively. Affidavit and counter affidavit in O.P.No.152 of 2001, filed for divorce by the respondent, were marked on the side of the appellant. The respondent examined herself as RW.1 and marked the reply affidavit of the appellant in the said O.P. On evaluation of the pleadings and evidence, the Family Court, Coimbatore, found that the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of Guardianship and considering the paramount welfare and interest of the minor child and the conduct of the parties, towards the welfare of the child, found that retention of custody and guardianship with the mother would be best suited for the child and accordingly, dismi




































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top