S.M. Subramaniam, J.—The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.08.2016 passed in GWOP.No.12 of 2013 by the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram.

2. The facts in nutshell as narrated by the counsel for the appellant are that the appellant is the father-in-law of the respondent and his only son namely, Palanikumar, married the respondent on 08.09.2011 and out of the wedlock, a male child was born on 11.07.2012. The only son of the appellant died in a road accident on 24.02.2013. After the death of his son, the respondent/daughter-in-law was in the house of the appellant for sometime and thereafter, went to her parents’ home. The appellant filed GWOP.No.12 of 2013 before the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, seeking custody of the minor child now aged 4 years. The reason stated by the appellant is that his grand son was with him for about 10 days after the death of his son and thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint before the All Women Police Station and she had taken away the child by threatening the appellant. The appellant/paternal grand father filed the petition for custody of the child. The ground for custody stated by the appellant is that the respondent is studying 10th Standard and for that purpose, she is going out and therefore, she is unable to maintain the child properly.

3. The contention of the respondent is that after the death of her husband, the appellant/father-in-law ill-treated her and had gone to the extent of beating and used abusive languages against her. Further, the respondent contended that the appellant illegally detained the child and driven out her from the house. The respondent finally filed a police complaint before the Uchipuli Police Station and after the intervention of the police, the respondent was able to secure her minor child aged about one year at that point of time. Further, the respondent contended that the appellant and his family members are not returning the articles and the jewels of the respondent which are under the custody of the appellant’s family. Due to all these issues, the appellant with a view to harass the respondent, filed a petition for custody of the minor child.

4. The learned Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, considered the rival contentions of both the appellant and the respondent and made a categorical finding that there was a strained relationship between the appellant and the respondent after the death of the son of the appellant in the road accident. This apart, the dispute between the appellant and the respondent still exists, since the articles and jewels belonged to the respondent are not handed over by the appellant to her. A case is also pending with regard to partition of properties. Considering various disputes prevailing between the appellant and the respondent and in the interest of the minor child aged about 4 years, the learned Principal District Judge rightly considered that the appellant is not entitled for custody of the minor child.

5. Courts have emphasised that the minor child below 5 years of age should be always with the custody of the mother, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that mother is not fit to have the custody of the child. In ordinary circumstances, it is always advisable and preferable to have the custody of the child only with the mother, more specifically, in respect of a child below 5 years of age. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the findings rendered by the learned Principal District Judge, are very much emphatic and there is no infirmity in the said findings.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the following decisions:-

(i) In Roxann Sharma vs. Arun Sharma, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 318, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 6, held as follows:-

‘‘6. In terms of Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition, ‘Visitation’ means a non-custodial parent’s period of access to a child. Visitation right means a non-custodial