SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

M.S.Selvam vs Parameswary on 30 April, 2019



DATED: 30.04.2019



CMA NO.2670 OF 2016
AND CMP NO.19074 OF 2016

2.S.Yogeshwari … Appellants


Parameswary … Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 of
Guardians and SectionWards Act, 1890, against the fair and decreetal order
dated 18.10.2016 passed in Guardian Original Petition No.02/2014, on
the file of the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.

For Appellants : Mr.I.Abrar Md Abdullah
For Respondent : Mr.S.Nambi Arooran


The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the

fair and decreetal order dated 18.10.2016 passed in GWOP No.02/2014

by the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.

2. The appellants are the third parties who claim that

they brought up the child for the money sent by the

respondent/mother. Now the boy is aged about nine years. When the

parties were directed to appear before this Court, the Boy refused to

go with the respondent/mother. Thereafter, an interim arrangement

was made on 29.03.2019, as follows:

“The matter was taken up in the Chambers and
negotiations are held. Minor is studying IV Standard and
he has to attend the annual examination from 8th April
to 12th April 2019. After the examinations are over, the
appellants agree to send the minor to their daughter’s
house at Vaniyambadi, where the respondent / mother of
the minor can visit and make close acquaintance with

Post the matter on 25.04.2019 at 02.00 pm in the
Chambers for appearance of parties.”

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

respondent that during the brief stay, the boy was very much attached

to the respondent/mother and only when he went back to the

caretaker/appellants, he behaved otherwise.

4. Now that the learned counsel for the appellants would

vehemently contend that the Lower Court failed to consider the

principles governing appointment of Guardians. The minor is so

emotionally attached with the appellants and his family members. The

respondent being a relative can visit the child anytime. Granting

custody to the mother will seriously prejudice the interests and well

being of the minor.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in VIVEK SINGH VS.

ROMANI SINGH [2017 (3) SCC 231] has categorically held that the age

around eight or nine is a very crucial and it is the age when his/her

emotional development may be evolving at a deeper level than ever

before. At that stage, keeping away the child from the relationship of

a father or mother will create Parental Alienation Syndrome.

6. It will have serious consequences in the behavioural

pattern of the child as he / she grows. Therefore, it is always better

to give the custody to the natural guardian in the interest and welfare

of the minors.

7. Curiously, in this case, the appellants are neither

parents nor biologically connected to the child. They had taken care

of the child during the absence of the mother when she was out of

India for some money paid to them. They cannot claim any right over

the child legally or on factual aspects. In the light of the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vivek Singh’s case (cited supra) it is

better to hand over custody of the child to the respondent / mother.

8. In such circumstances, this Court confirms the order

dated 18.10.2016 passed in Guardian Original Petition No.02/2014 by

the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, granting custody of the child

in favour of the respondent/mother. The appellants are directed to

hand over the child to the respondent within a period of one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without causing any

emotional disturbances to the minor.

9. It is also necessary to issue a direction to the

respondent/mother, in the interest of the minor, to retain the child in

India without causing any emotional disturbances to the child and to

maintain him well. If there is any complaint against taking the child

outside India or any attempt to take him away, without getting further

orders from this Court, the same will be seriously viewed warranting

penal consequences. Liberty is granted to the respondent/mother for

approaching this Court for appropriate orders.

10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the

above observations and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected

civil miscellaneous petition is closed.


Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non speaking order


The Principal District Judge



CMA NO.2670 OF 2016


Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation