1. The Petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 29.06.2011 in I.A.No.401 of 2011 in G.W.O.P.No.1 of 2010 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Perundurai.

2. The Learned Sub Judge, Perundurai, while passing the orders in I.A.No.401 of 2010 in G.W.O.P.No.1 of 2010 on 29.06.2011, has categorically observed that '... It is important that while examining the minor son, this petitioner has not at all raised any objection and after finding that his evidence is totally against this petitioner, as an after thought, this petitioner has filed this petition belatedly with malafide intention. Further it is important to note that in the petition this petitioner has prayed to scrap the evidence of RW2. But the RW2 is a major aged 45 years. Therefore the prayer in this petition to scrap the evidence of RW2 itself wrong and it would establish that this petition has been filed with sole intention to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer in the petition itself wrongly framed by the petitioner' and has come to a resultant conclusion that the minor is a competent person to give evidence and the Court has followed all norms before examining minor witness and as such, his evidence is sustainable and it need not be scraped and dismissed the application without costs'.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Husband submits that the Petitioner/Husband has filed G.W.O.P.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Sub Judge, Perundurai under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act praying for custody of his minor son aged 12, studying in 8th Standard and living with the Respondent/Wife.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Husband urges before this Court that minor son has been examined as R.W.3 in I.A.No.401 of 2011 in G.W.O.P.No.1 of 2010, notwithstanding the fact that in law, he cannot give evidence in respect of the dispute pending before the Court.

5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, a minor child cannot be administered oath or affirmation and as such, the trial Court cannot allow a minor to give evidence in support of the parties.

6. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that a minor is incapable of being administered oath as per the ingredients of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects a legal plea that a minor cannot be examined before a Court of Law unless the Court has conducted some preliminary examination in order to ascertain the level of understanding by putting some questions to him. Also, a ground has been taken in the grounds of revision that failure to hold an preliminary examination of a child witness by the trial Court is fatal to the case.

8. In support of the contention that the affidavit signed by a child witness is incompetent and inadmissible in evidence before a Court of Law, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the decision of this Court in S.Amutha V. C.Manivanna Bhupathy, (2007) 1 MLJ 916 at special page 917 wherein, it is held thus:

"(i) Affidavit signed by a child witness is incompetent, and inadmissible in evidence as per the Oaths Act, read with the General Clauses Act.

(ii)Though a child is competent to testify as per Section 118, Evidence Act, 1872, Court should take into consideration the fact that such child witness could be influenced by interested parties and that the evidence of such child witness could be a tutored one.

(iii)Though a child can testify, as per Section 118, Evidence Act, 1872, the evidence of a child witness should, normally be, corroborated.

(iv)When it is not a criminal case or one of custody, but a case of pure matrimonial discord, where, taking sides could affect the future interests of the child, the child cannot be a witness in such a matrimonial dispute, the welfare of the child being of paramount importance."

9. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Wife submits that it is not correct to contend that minor ca