P.Ranjith Kannan vs R.Dhanalakshmi on 17 November, 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 17.11.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

C.M.A.(MD)No.427 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5726 of 2016

P.Ranjith Kannan … Appellant

Vs.

R.Dhanalakshmi … Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 47 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, to set
aside the judgment and decree in G.W.O.P.No.37 of 2014, dated 10.02.2016 on
the file of the Additional District and Session Judge, Theni at Periyakulam,
Theni District.

!For Appellant : Mr.K.Prabakaran
^For Respondent : Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar

:JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.The appellant herein is the father. The respondent is the mother.
Sivanandi @ Kamalesh is the minor child born to the parties herein. The
marital relationship between the parties is under strain. The appellant
appeared in person before this Court and fairly stated that he does not have
any complaint against his wife. But she is under the influence of her father
and other relatives chose to foist a false case against him. The appellant
had therefore filed a case for divorce. It is still pending. This Court can
only express to hope its hope that the issue between the parties will be
amicably resolved at some point of time in future.

3.Be that as it may, the appellant filed G.W.O.P.No.37 of 2014, dated
10.02.2016, on the file of the Additional District and Session Judge, Theni
at Periyakulam, Theni District, seeking custody of his minor child. The
Trial Judge dismissed the same by order dated 10.02.2016. The said order of
dismissal is under challenge in this Court. I had a personal session with
the minor child. The child is being brought up well by his mother. But the
fact remains that financially, the father is a better placed to bring up the
child. The father made an earnest plea that he should be given custody of
his child.

4.It is true that the interest of the child is paramount. But one
cannot lose sight of the fact that Kamalesh is a very young boy and that it
would be unfair to separate him from his mother. However, at the same time,
this Court taking into account the fact that the father will give good
education to his child, deems it fit to dispose of the appeal in the
following terms:-

A.The appellant is declared to be guardian of the minor child Kamalesh.
B.The respondent/mother is entitled to have the physical custody of the
child.

C.The appellant or his mother viz., the grand mother of the child shall
go to the respondent’s place and bring the child every Friday evening and
drop the child back every Sunday evening. In other words, the child shall be
with the appellant in the week-end.

d.It is made clear that when the appellant or his mother come to pick
up the child, the respondent and her relatives shall extend their fullest
cooperation. The child shall be properly counselled so as to enable the
child to develop a natural bonding with the father.

5.The order dated 10.02.2016 made in G.W.O.P.No.37 of 2014, on the
file of the Additional District and Session Judge, Theni at Periyakulam is
modified.

6.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

To

1.The Additional District and Session Judge,
Theni at Periyakulam, Theni District.

2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *