The court confirmed that the mother is entitled to custody under Mahomedan Law, favoring her legal standing as guardian while allowing limited access to the father.

O R D E R

This application has been filed seeking to declare the petitioner as the guardian of the minor children to the petitioner.

2.Heard Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.N.A.Nassir Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the respondent were married as per the Islamic laws on 31.05.2013 and they had begotten two daughters. On 17.12.2016, the respondent had dissolved the marriage by Khula. Thereafter, the petitioner remarried. According to him, the petitioner has been maintaining the minor children till date and the respondent however is not permitting the petitioner to see them. It had come to the knowledge that the respondent is intending to remarry and take the minor children abroad. He would further submit that being the father he is a natural guardian and therefore, the petitioner seeks himself to be declared as guardian and to have custody of the minor children. He would further submit that the respondent cannot deny the petitioner his right to meet the minor children.

4.He would rely upon the cross-examination of the respondent and state that the petitioner is paying the maintenance apart from the Educational & Medical expenses. He would further submit that the respondent had disagreed with the petitioner and his parents of having custody of the minor children on Saturdays & Sundays or any extended weekend holidays either outside of the respondent's place or at Chennai. He would also rely upon the evidence of the respondent during the cross-examination, where she would deny the minor children to be with the grandparents at Trichy during School vacation and also where she had refused to agree for custody during alternative festival for the minor children to be with the petitioner and his parents at Trichy.

5.He would further draw the attention of this Court to the cross-examination wherein, the respondent had agreed that she does not have the means to support the minor children. He would further submit that a proposal had been given by him to the respondent seeking to have custody of the minor children during the weekends and extended holidays and also 50% of the holidays during vacation and alternative custody of the minor children during festivals. He would submit that the respondent has not acceded to such a proposal. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner be granted guardianship and custody of the minor children.

6.Countering his arguments, Mr.P.Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner and his parents were very upset after the birth of the second child, because it was a girl child. He would submit that the petitioner and his family members were only expecting a boy child and since thereafter they have pressurized & traumatized the respondent to give Khula so that the reputation of the petitioner does not fall. He would further submit that the petitioner had remarried again and a girl child was born in the marriage. He would further submit that the second wife has also been sent out of the matrimonial house as she did not give birth to a boy child and a criminal case has been initiated by the second wife as against the petitioner and his parents and the same is still pending. He would submit that on that ground alone, the petitioner had conducted himself in such a way that he could not be entitled to either the guardianship or the custody of the minor children.

7.He would further submit that the petitioner is beneficially employed in Saudi Arabia and is residing there. He w