BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA CMA(MD)No.1384 of 2024 and CMP(MD)No.15014 of 2024 A.Arockiya Anandharajan : Appellant/ Respondent Vs.

M.Sumithradevi through her mother Mrs.Mariammal as power of attorney : Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, to set aside the order dated 18.09.2024 passed in G.W.O.P No.435 of 2023, on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul.

For Appellant : Mr.J.Pandi Dorai For Respondent : Mr.Punithadevakumar

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon'ble R.POORNIMA.J This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Appellant/respondent/father against the order dated 18.09.2024 passed in G.W.O.P No.435 of 2023, on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul.

2.The appellant/respondent/father contends that being the natural guardian, he is entitled to custody. In the present case, the materials placed on record reveal that the marital relationship between the parties has been strained for a considerable period. Allegations and counter-allegations have been made regarding dowry harassment, desertion, and forcible removal of the children. While it is not necessary in custody proceedings to render definitive findings on each matrimonial allegation, the surrounding circumstances assume significance.

3.The mother who is the power agent of petitioner asserts that the children were forcibly taken by the respondent. The respondent/father, on the other hand, claims that the petitioner voluntarily left the children and went abroad.

4.The learned Family Judge, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, thought it fit to allow the petition while granting visitation rights to the respondent/father/appellant.

5.This court has to decide whether that the order passed by the trial is sustainable or liable to be dismissed and whether the appellant is entitled for custody of the child?

6.The contention of the appellant that the petitioner deserted the children at a tender age is an admitted fact . There exists matrimonial disputes between the parties, owing to which the respondent/wife has been living separately. Though allegations of dowry harassment have been raised, it is relevant to note that no formal complaint or criminal proceedings were initiated by the respondent in this regard.

7.It is admitted fact that the respondent/wife left the minor children in the care of her mother when they were approximately one year and eight months old and proceeded abroad on 21.10.2021. Thereafter, the appellant/father, being the biological parent, assumed custody of the children.

8.It is seen that multiple complaints were lodged by the respondent’s mother alleging that the children had been kidnapped by their father. The respondent, through her mother acting as Power of Attorney, also filed H.C.P.(MD)No.1116 of 2022 before this Court alleging illegal detention. However, this Court categorically held that there was no illegal detention and that the children were in the lawful custody of their father. Visitation rights were accordingly granted.

9.The respondent/wife subsequently instituted the present custody proceedings through her mother as Power of Attorney. At the time of filing the petition, the respondent was residing abroad and admittedly returned to India only for the purpose of giving evidence, pursuant to directions issued by the Trial Court.

10.Significantly, the respondent/wife has not made any grave or serious allegations affecting the father’s suitability, except asserting that he was unemployed and incapable of maintaining the children. In rebuttal, the appellant/father has produced documentary evidence, including a salary certificate, establishing his employment. He has also produced school receipts demonstrating that he has been meeting the educational expenses of the minors.

11.The Trial Court itself has repeatedly recorde