Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1409
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Mrs. Gajalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Raghu Veera Pandian – Respondent
O.P.No. 196 of 2020 And A.No. 2547 of 2024
M/s. Jayanthi Venkatesh, Mr.E.Muralidharan
The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in determining the guardianship and custody of a minor child.
Headnote:
Guardianship - Minor Child - Custody - Welfare of Child
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed by the mother of a minor child Veslina G.R., born on 21.06.2009 in the United States of America, seeking to be appointed as guardian of Veslina and to be granted permanent custody. The respondent is the husband of the petitioner and the father of the minor child. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 25.10.1998 at Vellore according to Christian rites and customs. They have a male child Lauxley G.R. Pandian, who was born on 24.07.1999. Veslina is their second child. The petitioner alleged that the respondent exhibited a change in behaviour and began to verbally and physically abuse her, and she had to take a decision to move over to the United States of America for her job prospects. The respondent also came there on a dependent visa. Since the marriage had irretrievably broken down, the petitioner had filed I.D.O.P.No. 89 of 2019 before the Family Court at Chengalpattu, which was subsequently transferred to the Principal Family Court, at Chennai.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had failed to discharge his moral and legal obligations towards the child, as he had not met the child for the past 8 years. The child was comfortable with the petitioner and expressed her unwillingness to be with the respondent. Considering the welfare of the child, the court appointed the petitioner as the guardian of the minor child and granted her permanent custody.
Issues: ['Whether the guardianship of minor Veslina could be handed over to the petitioner or to the respondent?', 'Whether the petitioner or the respondent should be granted custody of the minor child?', 'What other arrangements are to be made by this Court taking into consideration the welfare of the child?', 'To what reliefs are the parties entitled to?']
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration and found that the respondent had failed to maintain a relationship with the child for the past 8 years, and thrusting the child on the respondent would not serve the child's best interests. The court also noted that the child was comfortable with the petitioner and expressed her unwillingness to be with the respondent.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, appointed the petitioner as the guardian of the minor child, and granted her permanent custody of the child. The court also disposed of the respondent's application for visitation rights, observing that the respondent must address the petitioner and seek the convenience of the child, and thereafter visit the child, subject to the child's willingness.
The petition has been filed by the mother of Veslina G.R., a child born on 21.06.2009 at United States of America seeking to be appointed as guardian of Veslina and to be granted permanent custody. The respondent is the husband of the petitioner/father of the minor child.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 25.10.1998 at Vellore according to Christian rites and customs. They have a male child Lauxley G.R. Pandian, who was born on 24.07.1999. Veslina is their second child. Since she was born in United States of America. She is a citizen of that country.
3. In the petition, it had been alleged that the respondent exhibited a change in behaviour and began to verbally and physically abuse the petitioner. She had to take a decision to move over to United States of America for her job prospects. The respondent also came there on a dependent visa. Since the marriage had irretrievably broken down, the petitioner had filed I.D.O.P.No. 89 of 2019 before the Family Court at Chengalpattu. Subsequently, the petition has been transferred to the Principal Family Court, at Chennai.
4. In the petition, it had been claimed that Veslina is just 10 years old and needs constant care and protection of a mother, the petitioner. Her first son has attained the age of majority. It is also alleged that the respondent is an alcoholic and is a very violent person. It has therefore been sought that the petitioner should be appointed as the guardian of her minor daughter Veslina and she may also be granted permanent custody.
5. A counter has been filed by the respondent denying the allegations raised against him. He stated that he never anticipated that the petitioner would file this petition as he always wanted to rejoin with her. He stated that the actual names of the two children are Lauxley Gaja Raghu Pandian and Veslina Gaja Raghu. The respondent claimed that he had included the name of the petitioner in the name of the two children. He denied allegations about change in behavior pattern and that he was an alcoholic. He further stated that I.D.O.P.No. 89 of 2019 has been transferred to the Principal Family Court at Chennai and renumbered as O.P.No. 87 of
2020. He had further stated that the minor daughter requires care and protection of both the parents. He claimed that he had helped the petitioner to get employment in United States of America and later he went there on H4 dependent visa. He was working from home during his stay in United States of America and was the earning member of the family. He stated that even after the petitioner lost her job, he was able to get an alternate job for her. He further stated that he was always a dutiful father and he was not addicted to alcohol but was only a social drinker. He stated that the friends of the petitioner had wrongly advised her to file the petition. He further stated that the custody and guardianship of his child should be handed over to him and he would take every effort to ensure that her welfare is taken care of. He further stated that the petitioner had given a complaint to the Sholinganallur Police Station and he had to go there to settle the issues amicably. He therefore stated that the petition should be dismissed.
6. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter statement. She reiterated the averments made in the petition. She further stated that land measuring 8.11 acres had been purchased at Peranmpet, Chinnathamal Theru from her earning but the registration was done in the name of the respondent.
She further stated that she also purchased a residential apartment at Sholinganallur and again the apartment was registered in the joint names of herself and the respondent. A loan had been obtained and it was she who was repaying the loan. She had to also maintain the family, spend for the education of the children and also for the welfare of the children. She claimed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. She denied allegations against her in the
