N.VENKATARAMAN Vs. VIJAYARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original side appeal is filed against the order made in Application No.3517 of 2012 in O.P.No.499 of 2012, dated 8.11.2012, rejecting the request of the appellant seeking interim custody of his minor daughter Vishnupriya @ V.Preeti every week end, pending disposal of O.P.No.499 of 2012, wherein the appellant has prayed for permanent custody of the minor child born on 16.8.1997. The appellant and respondent got married on 11.9.1995 and the minor daughter was born on 16.8.1997. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved in H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2008, by judgment and decree dated 21.10.2008. The minor daughter is with the respondent all these years and OP was filed on 3.7.2012 i.e., after four years of the decree of divorce. The minor is now aged 15 years and studying in 11th Standard at Chennai.

(2.) THE contention of the respondent before the learned single Judge was that the appellant behaved violently and repeatedly assaulted the respondent and the minor child. The appellant of late attempted to visit school, where the minor is studying and the minor daughter fearfully moved away from the appellant and the appellant started shouting in front of her friends and other parents. The welfare and the wishes of the minor were the criteria to be ascertained for deciding the application and the learned single Judge on 15.10.2012 directed the minor child to be produced before the Chambers to have an interaction on 18.10.2012. The minor child was produced and the learned single Judge ascertained the wishes of the minor. The minor has strong prejudice against the appellant and gave various reasons for such prejudice. The minor child was found to be sufficiently matured enough to speak for herself. The learned single Judge after ascertaining her views, in his order stated that the "minor is not willing to go with her father even for a day". Therefore, the application was not ordered and the learned single Judge granted liberty to the appellant to speak with his minor child over phone or through scribe if he so wishes and if any such request is made, the respondent was directed to permit the same for a limited time either once or twice in a month during weekend.

(3.) THE learned single Judge having found that the welfare of the minor child is better served with the respondent and the child has not shown any inclination to go with her father even for a day, the said finding cannot be found fault with.