The interest and welfare of the minor children are of paramount consideration in custody matters. Courts should conduct a deeper inquiry into the state of mind of the children and consider their genuine interest. Decisions should not be based solely on allegations and counter-allegations but should prioritize the psychological well-being and future of the children. Courts have a duty to protect the rights and interests of minor children and should decide custody petitions expeditiously.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act to set aside the order and decretal order dated 08.04.2022 in O.P. No. 632 of 2022.)

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

1. The Original Side Appeal has been instituted challenging the order and decretal order dated 08.04.2022 passed in O.P. No. 632 of 2022. The appellant was the petitioner in the said O.P.

2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 11.12.2002 at Vadapalani Murugan Temple, Chennai in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock between the appellant and the respondent, two daughters were born. The elder daughter, by name, C. Meenakumari @ Meena, was born on 06.05.2006 and the younger daughter by name C. Neeraja @ Naveena was born on 21.07.2010. The appellant is working as a Head Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Department and presently, she is posted at All Women's Police Station, Thousand Lights, Chennai. The respondent is employed as a Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

3. Due to misunderstanding and frequent quarrels between the appellant and the respondent, they filed a consent divorce application in O.P. No. 4376 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court and a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent was granted by the competent court on 16.08.2018.

4. The appellant states that the respondent is a person of adamant nature and never considered her or her family members. He is a politically influential person and gave several complaints against the appellant in the Police Department itself with false allegations. With his personal influence, the respondent took the appellant to Redhills and admitted her in Ocean Rehabilitation Centre for mental treatment in July, 2014 without the knowledge and consent of the appellant, who was very much working in the Police Department. The appellant states that her hands and legs were kept tied for two days by the staff of the Rehabilitation Centre. Thereafter, with the help of her mother and uncle, the appellant was released from the Rehabilitation Centre. Even after that, the appellant was continuously harassed by the respondent.

5. The appellant, being a working woman, was initially, not in a position to look after her children and her mother assisted her to maintain the children properly. However, the respondent had forcibly taken the children to his sister's house and the appellant, at one point of time, was not even permitted to see her children. The appellant was forced to leave her residence and the minor children were taken to the residence of the sister of the respondent. Initially, the appellant was visiting the minor children in the house of the respondent's sister till the year 2016 and thereafter, the respondent prevented the appellant from visiting the children and therefore, the appellant was constrained to file O.P. No. 632 of 2016 seeking custody of her minor daughters.

6. In the said O.P., an application in A.No. 4676 of 2016 was filed seeking interim custody of the minor children for two days in a month and an interim order was passed granting custody of the children to the appellant during weekends. However, the said order was not honoured by the respondent. Contrarily, the respondent continued to be adamant and had not allowed the appellant to see the children. The O.P. was taken up for final adjudication on 08.04.2022 and was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, the present Original Side Appeal has been filed.

7. The appeal was filed mainly on the ground that the appellant is the mother of the minor children and she was not even permitted to visit her children. Both the minor children are female children and the care and assistance of mother is essential. It is further contended that the respondent is not looking after the minor children and he had left the children in his sister's house and they are now under the custody of the sister of the respondent, who is a third party.

8. The appellant ha