BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.07.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
CMA(MD)No.215 of 2016
and
CMP(MD)No.2896 of 2016
Alagu Pushpam … Appellant
Vs.
N.Subburaj …Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47 of the Guardians
and Wards Act against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.11.2015 in
GWOP.No.3 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
!For Appellant : Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran
^For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
:JUDGMENT
The appellant and the respondent got married on 07.09.2003 as per Hindu
rites and customs. A girl child Srimathy was born on 07.07.2008. The
marriage relationship between the parties came under strain. The allegation
made by the husband/respondent is that the appellant had developed illegal
intimacy with another person and she had also conceived as a result of such
a relationship. Therefore, the respondent filed a petition for dissolving
the marriage. In the meanwhile, he filed GWOP No.3 of 2013 before the III
Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli seeking guardianship and custodial
rights over the child. The learned III Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli by order dated 20.01.2015 allowed the petition as prayed for.
Questioning the same, this appeal has been filed.
2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3.The child is presently in the custody of the respondent. The court
below passed the impugned order only after examining the child. The child
categorically deposed that she wants to go only with the father and she does
not want to go with the mother and the child also expressed her further
apprehension that the mother would brand her. Taking note of the
deposition given by the child, the Court below chose to allow the GWOP
filed by the respondent herein.
4.This Court is of the view that the interest of the child is paramount
and that therefore, no interference is called for. The learned counsel for
the appellant submits that the mother may given visitation rights. This
request of the appellant’s counsel is reasonable. It is made clear that
the appellant will not have the physical custody of the child. She can only
visit the child. She can visit the child on the first Sunday of the every
month. The respondent is directed to afford appropriate arrangements in
this regard.
5.With this direction with regard to the visitation rights of the
appellant, this appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
To
1.The III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.
