ROSY JACOB Vs. JACOB A CHAKRAMAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The real controversy in these two appeals by special leave preferred by the wife against her husband, lies in a narrow compass. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the appeals by the husband and dismissing the cross-objections by the wife from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the same High Court dismissing about 25 applications seeking diverse kinds of reliefs, presented by one or the other party. According to the learned single Judge (Maharajan J.) "these 25 applications represent but a fraction of the bitterness and frustration of an accomplished Syrian Christian couple who after making a mess of their married life have endeavoured to convert this Court into a machinery for wreaking private vengeance". This observation reflects the feelings of the husband and the wife towards each other in the present litigation. The short question which we are called upon to decide relates to the guardianship of the three children of the parties and the solution of this problem primarily requires consideration of the welfare of the children.

(2.) The appellant, Rosy Chakramakkal (described herein as wife) was married to respondent Jacob A. Chakramakkal (described herein as husband) sometime in 1952. Three children were born from this wedlock. Ajit alias Andrews, son, was born in 1955, Maya alias Mary was born in 1957 and Mahesh alias Thomas was born in 1961. Sometime in 1962 the wife started proceedings for judicial separation (O. M. S. 12 of 1962) on the ground that the husband had inflicted upon her several acts of physical, mental and moral cruelty and obtained a decree on April 15, 1964. Sadasivam J., while granting the decree directed that Ajit alias Andrews (son) the eldest child should be kept in the custody of the husband and Mary alias Maya (daughter) and Thomas alias Mahesh (youngest son) should be kept in the custody of the wife. The husband was directed to pay to the wife Rs. 200/- per mensem towards the expenses and maintenance of the wife and the two children. The wife applied to Sadasivam J., sometime later for a direction that Ajit alias Andrews should also be handed over to her or in the alternative for a direction that the boy should be admitted in a boarding school. In this application (No. 2076 of 1964) it was alleged by the wife that the husband had beaten Ajit on the ground that he had accepted from his mother (the wife) a fountain pen as a present. This was denied by the husband but the learned Judge, after elaborate enquiry, held that he had no doubt that the husband had caused injuries to the boy on account of his sudden outburst of temper on learning that Ajit had received a fountain pen by way of present from his mother on his birth day. Ajit was accordingly directed to be handed over to the mother subject to certain conditions.

(3.) The husband preferred an appeal against the decree made in O. M. S. 12 of 1962 (O. S. A. 65 of 1964) and another appeal against the order made by Sadasivam J., (in application no. 2076 of 1964 in O. M. S. 12 of 1962) directing the custody of the eldest son Ajit to be handed over to the wife (O. S. A. 63 of 1964). On August 2, 1966 the appellate bench confirmed the decree for judicial separation granted by Sadasivam J., and also issued certain directions based on agreement of the parties with respect to the custody of the children, as also reduction of the monthly maintenance payable by the husband to the wife from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 150/- p. m., inclusive of maintenance payable for Mahesh. According to this order the eldest boy Ajit alias Andrews was directed to remain in the custody of the father and to be educated by him at his expense; Mahesh alias Thomas was directed to be in the custody of the mother to be educated at her expense:and the second child Maya alias Mary was directed to be put in a boarding school, the expenses of her board and education to be met in equal shares by both the parents. The husband also undertook that "he will arrange to have the presence of his mother or sister at his residence to attend to the children whenever they are with him and never to leave the children alone at his residence or to the care of his servants or others." Later both the husband and the wife presented a series of applications in the appellate Court seeking modifications of its directions. That Court ultimately made an order on February 2, 1967 modifying its earlier directions. The modified order directed Maya to be left in the exclusive custody of the wife who was at liberty to educate her in the manner she thought best at her own cost. The appellate Court also modified the direction regarding maintenance and ordered that the husband should pay to the wife maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- p. m. as awarded by the learned single Judge. Subsequently the directions of the appellate Court regarding access of the mother and the father to the children were also sought by the parties to be modified to the prejudice of each other. The matters are stated to have been heard by most of the Judges of the Madras High Court at one stage or the other and according to Maharajan J., the parties even tried to secure transfer of these proceedings by making wild allegations of partiality against some of the Judges. The husband who is an advocate of the Madras High Court, had, according to the wife, been filing cases systematically against her and the wife, who, in the opinion of Maharajan J., has the gift of the gab also argued her own cases. The children for whose welfare the parents are supposed to have been fighting as observed by Maharajan J., are given a secondary consideration and the quarrelling couple have lost all sense of proportion. On account of these considerations the learned single Judge felt that it would be a waste of public time to consider in detail the trivialities of the controversy pressed by both the parties to this litigation. According to the learned single Judge the following four points arose for his judicial determination: