IMPORTANT POINT
Arrangement as to custody of child with mother, in case child complains of any discomfort to her, it shall be open to parties to adduce further evidence in support of respective contentions.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—These appeals are filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, assailing the common order passed by the Family Court, Hyderabad in O.P Nos.95 and 731 of 2011.

2. The husband filed F.C.A Nos.253 and 255 of 2012 and the wife filed F.C.A No. 283 of 2012. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in F.C.A No. 253 of 2012.

3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 02-09-1999 and it was an arranged marriage. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 15-06-2006 and she is named, Jasmitha. The respondent filed O.P No. 95 of 2011 under Section 13 (1)(ia) and Sections 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against the appellant. She pleaded that at the time of marriage, cash and jewellery were given by her parents and a Maruti Esteem Car was also presented to the appellant. It was pleaded that she joined the respondent in the house of his parents after marriage and thereafter, they shifted to Bangalore where the appellant was working. She stated that her imagination about the marriage became shattered on account of the rude conduct of the appellant. He is said to have restricted her movements in the place of their residence and that, some times he used to physically assault her. The appellant is also said to have made her to write certain letters to the effect that she would live peacefully with him and that he used to abuse and threaten her. The respondent alleged that on coming to know that she became pregnant, the appellant wanted her to terminate it and even after the child was born, he used to ill-treat her as well as the child. She further alleged that the appellant did not have interest in leading conjugal life and he treated the institution of marriage only to fulfil his corner needs. She stated that it is only keeping in view the future of the child that she has put up with the ill-treatment caused to her and ultimately, prayed for a decree of divorce. A sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as permanent alimony and share in the property held by the appellant and his parents, were claimed.

4. The O.P was opposed by the appellant by filing a detailed counter. He denied all the allegations made in the O.P. He further stated that he took every step to keep the matrimonial life happy and comfortable and all the allegations made against him as to the violent treatment are false. He pleaded that the respondent used to exhibit nervousness without any reason and the O.P was filed without any basis.

5. The appellant filed O.P No. 731 of 2011 under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for permanent custody of the child Jasmitha. He stated that the respondent deserted him and took away the child and that no access is provided to him. It was stated that he is very much attached to the child and he is prepared to provide every comfort to both of them.

6. The respondent opposed that O.P by filing a counter. She stated that she being the mother of the child, she is entitled to have permanent custody and that it is not at all safe to handover the child to the appellant.

7. Through its order dated 15-05-2012, the Family Court decreed O.P No. 95 of 2011 and dismissed O.P No. 731 of 2011. The permanent custody of the child was given to the respondent and the appellant was given visitation rights for a day in a week. Hence, F.C.A Nos.253 and 255 of 2012 are filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the order to the extent of granting visitation rights to the appellant, the respondent filed F.C.A No. 283 of 2012.

8. Sri B. Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the ground of cruelty was pleaded by the respondent, she did not substantiate the same with any independent evidence. He submits that apart from the self-serving statement of the respondent, the only evidence was that of PW 2, a person unconnected with the family and even that witness did not speak of any acts of cruelty. He submits that the marriage between two persons