The paramount importance of the welfare of the child in matters of custody and visitation rights, as emphasized in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 21.

P. Velmurugan, J.

The Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam passed in Crl.M.P.No.6970 of 2011 in D.V.A.No.5 of 2011 by order dated 27.12.2012 and subsequently modified by the learned III Additional District Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.6 of 2013 by an order dated 28.02.2013.

2. The brief facts of the revision petitioner in the revision petition are as follows :-

The first petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Both the first petitioner and the respondent are the divorcee and the present marriage is second marriage to both of them. The first petitioner has a daughter from his first marriage. From the second marriage with the respondent female child was born. The respondent filed a petition against the revision petitioners in D.V.A.No.5 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam alleging Domestic Violence. According to the respondent, the petitioners ill-treated her and treated very cruelly. During the pendency of the D.V.A., the respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.6970 of 2011 praying for custody of the child. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides and also enquiring the child directly and passed an interim order permitting the respondent to have the custody of the child during the last Saturday of Every month. Since the Child was refused to go with the respondent, the Court passed an order dated 27.12.2012, directing the petitioners to produce the child on Monday or Friday of every week before the Court and further permitted the respondent to sit with the child and talk to the child in the Court premises itself. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.6 of 2013. The learned Appellate Judge after hearing both sides and after enquiring the child directly, passed an order dated 28.02.2013 permitting the respondent to meet the child on first and third Saturday of every month between 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. in the house of the petitioners. Likewise, the petitioners were directed to leave the child at the house of the respondent at Mettupalayam between 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. during the second and fourth Saturday of every month. Aggrieved over the said order, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Courts below have miserably failed to understand and appreciate the statement made by the child. The child has categorically stated that she is not willing to go with the mother namely the respondent. The learned Judge's have even recorded the statement of the child, she did not even look at the face of the respondent. When that being so, the learned Judge should have appreciated the fact that the welfare of the child is paramount. The learned senior counsel further submit that only after enquiry made by the learned Judge to the minor child personally, the child refused to speak or to go with the respondent, the visitation right was given without representing the rights of the mother to take care of the child. The genuineness of this problem arose when the respondent objected to the presence of the first daughter of the first petitioner in the family. The first petitioner is taking good care of both the daughters, therefore, peace and enjoyment of the minor child is not disturbed.

4. Though Notice has served on the respondents. But she is not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.

5. Heard Mr. G. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after marriage with the respondent, the first child of the first petitioner stayed with her father. This was objected by the respondent and she started ill-treating the child. In the meanwhile, the first petitioner and the respondent had a daughter. The respondent denied the allegation of ill-treatment of the