The welfare of the minor child takes precedence in custody disputes, shaping the court's decision based on the child's preferences and parental capabilities.

ORDER

This original petition is presented by the mother of the minor child, Evaan. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to appoint herself as the legal guardian of the minor son, Evaan, and to grant permanent custody of the minor child in her favour. An application in A.No.3152 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner seeking communication rights with the minor child Evaan.

2. An application in A.No.3153 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner seeking visitation rights over the minor child Evaan during weekends.

3. An application in A.No.1126 of 2023 has been filed by the respondent seeking permission to take the minor child Evaan to Dubai for his education.

4. The petitioner states that she and the respondent were married on 02.11.2011 and were blessed with their son Evaan on 22.02.2015. Differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent. On 05.11.2021, the respondent allegedly removed the minor child from his ordinary place of residence in Uthandi and took him to Bangalore without the consent of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a complaint in CSR No.13 of 2022 against the respondent on 11.01.2022, as the respondent continued to deny her access to the minor child. In retaliation, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 12.02.2022 containing false allegations. The petitioner, through her counsel, requested a meeting with the minor child. The petitioner went to Bangalore on 05.05.2022 to meet Evaan but was treated with disrespect and cruelty by the respondent and his family. The petitioner and respondent have been separated since 04.11.2021. Given these circumstances, the petitioner contends that it is necessary to appoint her as the legal guardian of the minor child and to grant her permanent custody.

5. The case of the respondent is that the ward was never forcibly removed from the custody of the petitioner. Rather, the minor child was sent with him voluntarily by the petitioner herself, as has been the practice since 2020. The respondent asserts that the ordinary residence of the minor child, who was born and brought up in Abu Dhabi and Bengaluru, is not Chennai. He contends that there is no proof to show that the minor child permanently shifted to Bengaluru on 05.11.2021, and questions why the petitioner waited for 36 days to lodge a police complaint if there had been a wrongful removal. The respondent further argues that the petitioner's allegations are limited to matrimonial disputes and do not establish any substantive reason warranting a change of custody. The respondent asserts that the petitioner has filed the present petition merely to extract money from him to facilitate her migration to Canada to pursue her career and to harass the respondent and his family.

6. Heard Ms.B.Poongkhulali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Anupam Raghuraman, learned counsel for M/s. Raman and Associates.

5) Ms.B.Poongkhulali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 02.11.2011 at Secunderabad, and their son, Evaan, was born on 22.04.2015. After marriage, the couple began their marital life at the respondent’s parental home in Kottivakkam. Subsequently, the respondent secured employment as a pilot, and the family relocated to Abu Dhabi. She submits that during the petitioner’s pregnancy and thereafter, both in Abu Dhabi and in India, the respondent allegedly failed to provide emotional or physical support to the petitioner and the child. Instead, he is said to have indulged in lavish expenditures, including the purchase of an Audi A7 car, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, and a Siberian Husky puppy. Following Evaan’s birth, the petitioner took up a job as a teacher in order to financially support herself and the chi