This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 09.09.2016 made in GWOP No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar.

2. The appellants are the respondents and the respondent is the petitioner in GWOP No.1 of 2014 on the file of District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur. The respondent and the first appellant are husband and wife. The second appellant is the mother of the first appellant. The respondent filed GWOP No.1 of 2014 under Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, on the file of District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur, seeking for a direction to the appellants to restore the custody of minor Sivathmika Rubini Ramesh to the respondent who is the father of minor daughter.

3. The marriage between the first appellant and the respondent was conducted at Rajapalayam on 06.09.1999 as per Hindu Customs and Rites. From the date of marriage, the first appellant was behaving in a manner which clearly exposed that she is immatured. The second appellant and her husband (father of the first appellant) convinced the respondent that the first appellant was brought up in USA and she was not familiar with Indian culture. The respondent did not get visa to go to USA immediately. The first appellant, during first week of October 1999 went to USA. The marriage conducted on 06.09.1999 was registered only on 28.02.2001 when the first appellant came to India. After marriage, when the first appellant came back to India, the respondent and first appellant were living together for five months. The respondent came to know that even though the first appellant was aged 27 years, her mental maturity was only that of 5 years old. When the respondent made a complaint to the parents of the first appellant, they gave evasive reply. They offered the respondent a decent job in USA and the respondent went to USA and he was gainfully employed in USA from 2002.

4. Inspite of the co-habitation, the first appellant did not conceive and medical examination revealed that she could not give birth to a child. She underwent medical treatment and by artificial insemination, the minor daughter was born. The mental condition of the first appellant was deteriorating day-by-day that she could not take care of herself and also the child. The respondent and the first appellant returned to India. The custody of the minor daughter was with the respondent and his parents took care of the child. Inspite of medical treatment, the mental illness of the first appellant did not improve. By end of December 2010, the second appellant came to India and took away the minor daughter and the first appellant from the house of the respondent at Rajapalayam. The first appellant is mentally ill and she cannot take care of herself as well as the minor daughter. The first appellant has no independent income. The second appellant is 60 years old and she has no regular income of her own. The father of the first appellant and the second appellant (parents of the first appellant) filed insolvency petition and were declared as bankrupt and subsequently they were discharged. They do not have any independent income but they are living by the financial assistance given by the US Government. The first appellant also is living only on the financial assistance through Social Security Disability Benefits offered by the US Government on the ground of her mental condition. In the circumstances, it will not be in the interest of minor daughter, if custody is with the first appellant. The respondent is decently employed and is in sound financial position to bring up the minor daughter and give her good education and it will be the best interest of the minor daughter if custody is given to the respondent.

5. The first appellant filed counter statement and it was adopted by the second appellant denying the various averments mentioned in the petition filed by the respondent and submitted that at the time of marriage, t