IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Courts while considering question of a minor child’s custody, has to keep in mind overall well being of child and paramount consideration should be only its welfare.
(2) It is discretion of Family Courts to receive any evidence, reports, statement, document, information or matter which in its opinion, is necessary to deal effectively with dispute event if it is not admissible in Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Vishwajith Shetty J.—This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 47(C) of the Gurardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, ‘the Act’), against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2022 passed by the IV Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’), in G & WC.No.128/2018, wherein the Family Court has allowed the petition filed by the respondent-father under Section 25 of the Act and directed the appellant-mother to hand over the custody of the minor child to the respondent and further restrained the appellant from removing the child from the jurisdiction of the Family Court till the custody of the child is handed over to the respondent.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records which would be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and customs on 23.10.2011 and from the said wedlock, a girl child who was named Mayra Giri was born on 26.04.2015. Both the parties are Doctors by profession. It appears that the parties had come across each other through a marriage portal, and thereafter got married. At the time of marriage, the respondent’s parents and his sister with her two years old daughter were staying with him and the appellant was fully aware of the same and she had allegedly consented for the marriage knowing that she had to reside with the respondent along with his family members.

4. After the marriage, the appellant allegedly started quarrelling with the respondent’s family members and she also used to abuse them and created unpleasant atmosphere in the house. The ill-treatment to the family members by the appellant continued inspite of the respondent advising her and being unable to bear the ill4 treatment, the family members of the respondent were constrained to leave the house and they started residing separately. After the family members had left the house, the appellant had told the respondent that her plan to throw out his family members had worked out and the same trick was played by her mother to get rid of her in-laws. Even after the family members of the respondent started residing separately, the appellant continued her hostile attitude towards them and she even objected the respondent visiting them or supporting them. The appellant allegedly had grown up in her maternal grandparents house, and therefore, she did not value the family relationship and the bondage, and therefore, she always attempted to separate the respondent from his family members.

5. It is the specific case of the respondent that the appellant was short-tempered and she was in the habit of behaving aggressively even on petty issues. The respondent had, therefore, taken the help of trained counsellors in order to save his marriage and whenever the counsellors tried to point out the flaws in her, the appellant retaliated and she also abused the counsellor and she did not cooperate for counselling. During one of the sessions, the Counsellor had advised that the appellant needs psychological evaluation. After one such counselling, the appellant allegedly fought with the respondent, abused him in filthy language, assaulted him and also broke his mobile phone which had forced the respondent to approach the police and file a complaint against her. The appellant was in the habit of picking up quarrel with the respondent in public. When the appellant was pregnant, inspite of request, her parents refused to take care of her, and therefore, the parents of the respondent who had gone to Tokyo for attending respondent’s sister’s delivery, had to fly back for taking care of the appellant. The respondent’s parents after coming back from Tokyo had taken care of the appellant during her advanced stage of pregnancy and after she gave birth to the girl child, they also had taken care