JUDGMENT :

R. Tharani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order, dated 23.12.2014, made in G.W.O.P. No. 30 of 2012, on the file of I Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.

2. The appellants herein are the petitioners and the respondents herein are respondents in the original petition.

3. Brief substance of the petition, in G.W.O.P. No. 30 of 2012, is as follows:-

The first respondent is the daughter of the petitioners. She was married to the second respondent in the year 2007 and they gave a birth to the minor viz., Sharon Divina, on 10.03.2008. The child is residing with the petitioners. The second respondent is employed in Southern Railway at Erode. The first respondent is working as a Teacher in a private School and the respondents are living at Somarasampettai. The first respondent developed intimacy with a person, by name, Shajukumar and she went away and is living in adultery. The first respondent did not take care of the minor child. The second respondent is in a transferable job and he cannot take of a female child. The petitioners, being the grand parents of the minor child, are taking care of the minor child. The first petitioners is a retired Teacher and he is having movable and immovable properties of his own and he is getting monthly pension and they prayed that the custody of the minor to be given to the petitioners.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent, in G.W.O.P. No. 30 of 2012, is as follows:-

4.1. The first respondent is not residing with the second respondent, but, the other allegation about adultery is wrong. She left the matrimonial house by the end of the First month of marriage itself, she was living alone. Soon after the completion of the first month of marriage, the second respondent started abusing and harassing the first respondent. The second respondent is having illegal contact with some other woman. The first respondent left the matrimonial house and came back to the petitioners' house. From the date of birth of the female child, the second respondent did not take any care for the child. The first respondent used to go for a job as a Teacher, to maintain the child. Without thinking the welfare of the first respondent, the petitioners prevented the first respondent from taking steps for divorce. The first respondent left the petitioners' house on 07.11.2011 with the child.

4.2. The petitioners lodged a complaint against the respondent in Valanadu Police Station and the complaint was enquired in Petition No. 222/11. The police enquired the first respondent, and the first respondent requested the police not to send her back with her parents. The petitioners kept the first respondent in their relative's house at Karaikudi and harassed her. Because of the harassment, the first respondent was forced to get out of the house. Only to get a divorce from the second respondent, the first respondent left from Karaikudi, on 25.01.2012.

4.3. Again, the first petitioner gave a complaint before the Pallathur Police Station, on 25.01.2012, in Petition No. 16/12. The first respondent surrendered all her jewels to the petitioner. The first petitioner denied to hand over the child to the first respondent. The police instructed the first respondent to get the child through Court. On 30.04.2012, the first respondent got divorce from the second respondent. Then, she came to know that the petitioners are living in Somarasampettai. Hence, she filed a petition before the Somarasampettai Police Station, to get back the child from the petitioners, in Petition No. 299/12 and only during the enquiry, the first respondent came to know that the first respondent gave a paper publication as if the first respondent has left the house leaving the child. Only to get a Guardianship right, the petitioners are giving a false paper publication.

4.4. Later, the first respondent came to know about the pendency of the G.W.O.P. The child is just 5 years old. Without the care of the mother