Dr. S. Vimala, J.

Children are not mere chattels nor are they toys for their parents. Absolute right of parents over the destinies and the lives of their children, in the modern changed social conditions must yield to the considerations of their welfare as human beings so that they may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be useful members of the society and the guardian court in case of a dispute between the mother and the father, is expected to strike a just and proper balance between the requirements of welfare of the minor children and the rights of their respective parents over them - (2009) 1 SCC 42 (Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal).

1.1. Despite the guidance/observation by the Apex Court, still the parents never stop playing with the life of children and this is one such case, where the custody and guardianship issue has cropped up for consideration.

2. The petition in O.P. No. 4650 of 2014 has been filed by the husband (respondent herein) under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, declaring/appointing the petitioner as the Natural Legal Guardian and grant permanent custody of the minor male child, Harshit.

2.1. The petitioner/husband has also filed I.A. No.2826 of 2014, seeking interim injunction restraining his wife (appellant herein) and others from interfering with the custody of the petitioner's son, Harshit.

2.2. The wife has filed I.A. No.2981 of 2014 in I.A. No.2826 of 2014 under Order 39, Rule 4 CPC, praying to vacate the orders of interim injunction, dated 08.12.2014, granted in I.A. No.2826 of 2014.

Brief facts:-

3. The marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife took place on 04.02.2010 and they were living along with the husband's parents. The wife used to go for work at 09.30 am and return by 05.30 pm. Out of the wedlock, a child was born to the appellant/wife and the respondent, on 06.01.2011. A separate matrimonial house was set up by the appellant and the respondent, by March 2013. During June 2013, the child was admitted in a play school and the child was taken by the in-laws in the afternoon from school. The appellant, after returning from the office, used to take the child to their separate residence.

3.1. The respondent is employed at SINTEL, Solinganallur, Chennai, who leaves home at 10.00 am in the morning and used to return home by 11.00 pm, and at times, he doesn't come home in the night.

3.2. During May 2013, the respondent left the matrimonial home and the child and he never joined the appellant and the child. Hence, the respondent shifted the residence to ECR at Thiruvanmiyur. During June 2014, the child was admitted to Sankara School and the appellant arranged a bus to take the child in the morning from her house to the school and in the evening, the child was to be dropped at the in-laws house at about 01.00 pm. The appellant, on her return from the office, used to pick up the child from the in-laws house around 05.30 pm.

3.3. From September 2014, there was some mediation and according to the mediation, the child should be with the appellant for four days, including Sundays and with the respondent for three days, viz., Thursdays to Saturdays.

3.4. While the circumstances stood thus, the respondent filed O.P. No.4230 of 2014 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty before the Family Court.

3.5. The custody arrangement continued till November 2014. During conciliation, the respondent agreed for withdrawal of the Divorce O.P., but did not do so, therefore, the custody arrangement of 4 days and 3 days, respectively, with the respondent and the appellant, (in a week) discontinued. The child was exclusively with the mother for the period from November 2014 till 06.12.2014.

3.6. On 03.12.2014, the respondent forcibly took the child from the house of the appellant, which was prevented and a complaint was lodged by the appellant to the Police. The police enquired and warned the respondent.

3.7. There was a second incident on 06.12.2014 - when the appellant was with