In custody disputes under Guardian and Wards Act, welfare of child is paramount; biological father's right is not absolute. Child's reluctance and comfort with mother override father's claim for permanent custody, but visitation rights may be granted.

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner / father of the minor child for grant of permanent custody of the minor child K.Mohith to the petitioner under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act .

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

(i) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was soleminized on 18.01.2015 as per Hindu rights and customs at Kundrathur Main Road, Chennai and the said marriage subsequently registered on 18.03.2015. Both the petitioner and the respondent resided as husband and wife in the residence of the respondent at Old No.60/2, New No.64/2, Subramania Swamy Koil Street, Saidapet, Chennai and out of the wedlock, a male child, namely Mohith was born on 31.12.2015. The petitioner is an engineer and he is the only person to take care and support his parents. The respondent’s parents also started complaining about the petitioner’s parents’ house that the amenities are not proper.

(ii) The respondent always tried to detach the petitioner from his parents, but the petitioner for the welfare of the child adjusted with the respondent, while so, in the month of November, 2016, the respondent left Thoraipakkam home without informing to the petitioner. When the petitioner called the respondent she informed that she will not come, since the petitioner had fought with her and the respondent’s father also threatened the petitioner. Thereafter, they re-united, while so during September, 2017, both of them moved to Adambakkam rental house. The respondent did not like that house, at later point of time, the petitioner came to know that the respondent was taking hormone tablets regularly and she had some mental health issues.

(iii) While so, on 23.12.2022, the respondent, left the matrimonial home with the child without valid reasons and now she is residing at her parents home. The petitioner had taken all efforts through his close relatives, but the respondent refused to return but making false allegations, thereafter, the petitioner caused legal notice dated 05.01.2023 and the respondent issued reply notice dated 12.01.2023 with false allegations and the petitioner also issued re-joinder notice dated 28.03.2023. Thereafter, the respondent made false complaint against the petitioner before W20, All Women Police Station, Saidapet on 02.02.2023, after enquiry and as per advise of the police, the respondent allowed the petitioner to see the child and thereafter, the respondent refused to show the child and for the past four months, the petitioner did not see his son and the child has been deprived his care, affection and protection. The respondent and her family members blocked the petitioner’s access towards his son, therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition.

3. The case of the respondent is as follows:-

(i) The petitioner has filed this petition with ulterior motive to harass the respondent. The minor child is currently residing with her in a stable and nurturing manner and the child is well settled in his present school at Ponvidhyashram Group of Senior Secondary Schools. The petitioner having been negligent and indifferent towards the child upbringing for the past, cannot claim custody. The respondent came to know that the petitioner has got some issues relating to Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) owing to which behaviour patterns with the respondent are odd towards often different, among such other things, the respondent, on several occasions took the petitioner for consultations with Doctor and subsequently for mediation.

(ii) The petitioner is in the habit of fighting even for trivial issues. The petitioner has directed the respondent to reside at Thoraipakkam home only to avoid the visitation rights of respondent’s family. The parents of the respondent are age old, who never indulge in threatening the petitioner, as alleged in the petition. The petitioner also used to beat the child, if the child is not obeying his command. The petitioner had some physical issu