Court underscored importance of adhering to Family Court orders while addressing conflicting custody and maintenance claims, highlighting limitations of summary proceedings.

O R D E R

This civil revision petition is filed seeking an order to set aside the proceedings in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2022, dated 15/11/2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur.

2.The facts in brief:-

The marriage between the parties took place, on

27/05/2007 as per the Hindu customary rites. At the time of marriage, 80 sovereigns of gold jewels were presented, apart from 5 sovereigns to the husband. At that time, the husband was working in Bangalore in IT Company and earning Rs.3,25,000/- per month. The wife was also working in a IT Company in Chennai. Later, at the instance of the husband, she resigned the job and joined in Karur Vysya Bank at Bangalore.

3.Two childrens were born, on 21/10/2013 and

28/05/2015. It is alleged that after the birth of the childrens, the husband did not take proper care and having contact with various women and spending money lavishly. When that was questioned, the wife was harassed by his family members. On 28/03/2018, he demanded Rs. 25,00,000/- for purchase of the property. When that was refused, she was driven out of the house along with two childrens.

4.On 12/04/2019, the husband came to the house of the wife, attacked her and took away the two childrens.

Over which, a complaint was given to the Superintendent of Police, on 10/05/2019.

5.Again, another complaint was given to the District Collector. In spite of that, the childrens were not handed over. Now struggling to meet out their requirements, seeking various reliefs, she filed a petition.

6.That was resisted by the husband stating that he purchased 6.79 Acres of land in his name and another land in her name in Thenkanikottai, Krishnagiri District. The wife used to go to her parental home frequently. The wife pressurized the husband not to go to the parental house. After the birth of the two childrens, they shifted the residence to Bangalore. So, to take care of the childrens, the parents of the wife came to Bangalore and stayed there. They also offered to come to Thenkanikottai. So, the parents of the wife started living in the farm house in Thenkanikottai. But they made trouble to the workers. So, the husband insisted the in- laws not to visit that place. But they refused. Because of that issue only, trouble has started between them.

7.The wife with two childrens without any cause went to Karur and started living there since 2018. The husband used to visit the childrens during week end days. The wife did not take care of the childrens properly. So, he took the two childrens to Bangalore and admitted them in the school in the month of June 2019. He requested the wife to come to Bangalore and joined with him. But she is purposely evading. So, he filed GWC No.168 of 2019 before the Family Court, Bangalore and interim order was passed in respect of the custody of the childrens. There is no domestic violence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The marriage between the parties, birth of two childrens and the custody of the childrens are not denied and disputed. It all started well between them, soon- after the marriage. But after the birth of the childrens, something had gone wrong. As usual, allegations and counter allegations are made against each other.

10.It is contended by the wife that she was never treated, as stated by the husband. But contra is the submission of the petitioner. What was the relationship at the initial stage, the letter written by the wife stands in testimony. The hand written letter undated is marked as Ex.R1 on the side of the husband. In the concluding portion, she has concluded like this.

“Blessings

1.Am blessed with a wonderful husband. 2.Am blessed to have a mother like Uma

3.Am blessed to have a great father.

4.Am blessed to have a wonderful brother.

5.Am blessed to have education.”

11.As stated above, the letter was written, when there was no storm. When such was the relationship between them, now something had gone wrong. But apparently not due to the conduct of the petitioner herein, who is the h