Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Mr. Srinivasan – Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. T. Chandravandhana – Respondent
O.P. No. 388 of 2011
Decided On : 31-07-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Mohanamurali.
For the Respondent: Mr. T.S. Arthanareeswaran.
The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody cases, and the court will consider the ability of each party to provide a healthy environment, parental guidance, and financial support for the child's development.
Headnote:
CUSTODY - Family Law - [Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956] - The court discussed the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration, the ability of each party to provide a healthy environment, parental guidance, and financial support for the child's development. The court found that the father, being financially stable and having family support, was the best person to provide for the child's needs. The court also considered the mother's adulterous relationship and her instability as factors affecting the child's well-being. The court granted permanent custody to the father, allowing visitation rights to the mother.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permanent custody of the minor child, alleging that the respondent had developed a negative attitude, left the matrimonial home with the child, and engaged in an adulterous relationship. The respondent denied the allegations, claiming harassment and seeking dismissal of the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had provided evidence of the respondent's negative conduct, frequent changes in the child's school and residence, and her adulterous relationship, which affected the child's well-being. The court also noted the petitioner's financial stability and family support, concluding that he was the best person to provide for the child's needs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to permanent custody of the minor child, considering the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's evidence of the respondent's conduct, including her adulterous relationship and instability, established his entitlement to permanent custody. The court emphasized the importance of providing a healthy environment, parental guidance, and financial support for the child's development.
Final Decision: The court granted permanent custody of the minor child to the petitioner, allowing visitation rights to the respondent. The respondent was directed to hand over the child to the petitioner within ten days.
1. The petition has been filed to grant permanent custody of the minor S. Krishnavareshini born on 25.09.2005 to the petitioner, who is the father of the minor. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is as follows.
2. The petitioner is in the field of natural medical practice and he has immovable properties worth about Rs. 40 lakhs. The respondent and the petitioner had a love affair during 2002. They got married on 07.05.2003 at Cuddalore. In fact the respondent s parents were against the marriage, however, the marriage was solemnized on 07.05.2003. They started their matrimonial life at Cuddalore in Bhuvanagiri. The petitioner is all along showing love and affection towards the respondent and met all her comforts providing luxury items. Due to their wedlock a female child was born on 25.09.2005. The petitioner has spent huge money for the betterment of the wife and his daughter. The child had lot of primary health ailments because of mal-nursing of the respondent. The petitioner also conducted "Naming Ceremony" of the child. Thereafter, in the year 2008-2009 he admitted the child in Pre-K.G. in Mangalam Matriculation Higher Secondary School. The child was given very good education in the very good school. When the matter stood thus, the respondent changed her attitude, started raising quarrel in the family and developed negative attitude. On 11.4.2011, the respondent s father requested the petitioner and the respondent to come to Tiruchengode to see the ailing grandmother of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent and petitioner went to Tiruchnengode and came back to their native place. Thereafter again at the request of the respondent's father, the petitioner and respondent went to Tiruchnengode and the respondent's father requested the respondent to stay for a day or two till he leaves to Dubai. Thereafter, there was no response from the respondent despite repeated phone calls made by the petitioner.
3. When the petitioner went to Tiruchengode on 7.5.2011 he came to know that the respondent and her family got settled at Chennai. The respondent thereafter did not return back to the matrimonial home and the child also was not seen. The petitioner also sent a letter requesting the respondent to join him. However, the respondent sent a letter to the petitioner making scandalous and baseless allegations against him and the family members of the petitioner and she wanted to break up the marriage. The petitioner being the father and natural guardian, is entitled to take the custody of the minor child.
4. Denying the allegations in the petition, it is the contention of the respondent that ever since the date of marriage, her life became worse in the hands of the petitioner's elder sister and the unmarried sister who joined hands with his other two sisters along with their husbands. They used to torture the respondent by accusing that she was not capable of bringing any cash and valuables from her parental home. She suffered severe cruelty in the hands of the petitioner and the family members of the petitioner. Even for trivial things they used to beat the respondent in black and blue in the presence of minor child. When the respondent insisted to continue her study the petitioner and family members scolded her and stopped her BDS Course study. The allegation that the petitioner has spent huge money towards the child is also denied. The petitioner has not allowed the respondent to go out either for leaving the child into the school or bring the child from the school. Only when the petitioner and respondent visited the parental home of the respondent during 2011, she met her parents in the absence of the petitioner to explain her sufferings at the hands of the petitioner, his sister and his brother in law. Though several mediation were effected between the parties, the respondent made it clear that unless and until the petitioner's sister and brother in laws are restrained and she is also allowed to continue her studies, s
