The court emphasizes the child's welfare in custody disputes, validating visitation rights for a natural guardian with prior criminal acquittal.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decreetal order dated 12.11.2019 made in G.W.O.P. No. 11 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai and for a consequential direction to hand over the custody of minor Kabaleeswaran to the lawful custody of the appellant.

2. The appellant is the father of the child, namely, Kabaleeswaran.

The appellant's wife committed suicide on 07.02.2017 in the matrimonial home and pursuant to the same, a case has been registered against the appellant and after trial, the appellant was acquitted on 12.02.2025. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed GWOP No.11 of 2017 before the Family Court, Sivagangai claiming custody of his son, who was aged 4 years at that point of time. The said GWOP was dismissed and the relief of custody was dismissed, instead, the appellant has been given visitation rights. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the wife of the appellant committed suicide and the case registered against the appellant was ended in acquittal before the Sessions Court, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai vide judgment dated 12.02.2025, there is no appeal against the said judgment of acquittal. He would further submit that since the appellant is the natural guardian and except the criminal case, there is no other ground established before the Court below to the effect that the appellant has acted against the welfare and interest of the child. The appellant has also sufficient income to take care of his son, who is aged 13 years now. On these grounds, the learned counsel prays for appropriate direction.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is the grandmother of the child and the mother-in-law of the appellant herein. The mother of the child committed suicide. At the time of death of the mother, the child was only 4 years and pursuant to the criminal case registered against the appellant, the appellant was arrested and subsequently, after trial, the said case was ended in acquittal. The appellant has no income to take care of the child and the respondent, who is the maternal grandmother of the child, is taking care of the child, after the death of the mother. When the appellant has no means, it is difficult for him to take care of his son and hence, the family Court rightly dismissed the petition for custody and prays for dismissal.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, the appellant is the father of child, namely, Kabaleeswaran, aged 4 years at the time of filing of GWOP and now, he is aged 13 years. The appellant's wife committed suicide and a case was registered and after trial, the appellant was acquitted from the charges framed. Though the appellant is the natural guardian, after the death of the mother, during the pendency of the criminal case and also the guardianship petition, the appellant got second marriage. To substantiate his income, the appellant has not produced any materials to show that he has got sufficient income to provide good education and healthy foods to his son. It is also to be noted that after the death of the minor's mother, the respondent is taking care of the child and that the appellant has also not produced any materials to show that the respondent is acting against the welfare and interest of the child. The respondent is none other than the maternal grandmother of the child and she is taking care of the child from the date of death of the mother till today. Since there is no adverse or any incriminating materi