VARUN S NAIR (SIDHA) Vs. REMYA S NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal is instituted against the judgment in O.P.No.1834/2014 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant herein is the respondent in the original petition filed by the respondent herein before the Family Court, seeking permanent custody of the minor child born to the parties, named Siva Nandha, aged 5 years at the time of filing of the original petition. In the original petition filed before the Family Court, the respondent herein narrated about the consistent physical assault and torture to her from the side of the appellant. It is specifically mentioned that, on 14.11.2014, the appellant inflicted physical assault on the respondent in a brutal manner. Thereafter on 16.11.2014, the appellant called the brother of the respondent and requested him to take the respondent to a hospital. Accordingly the respondent was taken by her relatives from the house of the appellant and got her admitted in a hospital. Thereafter the spouses lived separately. The child was in the custody of the appellant. The respondent expressed an apprehension that the appellant will do harm to the minor child. Further it was contended that the respondent, being the mother of the child, is entitled to have custody of the minor child since she is ready and willing to look after the girl child.

(2.) The appellant resisted the original petition before the Family Court mainly contending that, he had realised that the respondent is having some illicit connection with a person named 'Ananda Krishnan', who was working in a Co-operative Society where the respondent had studied for computer course. According to the appellant, the respondent told him that she cannot live with the appellant any more as she loves the above said 'Ananda Krishnan' very much. It is further contended that the respondent was taken to the hospital and she conceded before the Doctor that she took excess quantity of tablets when the appellant failed to give her an amount of Rs.30,000/- for purchasing a video light for her brother. It is further alleged that the respondent is having a tendency to commit suicide. It was alleged that the respondent is claiming custody of the child only with an intention to extract money from the appellant. The appellant contended that he is capable of taking care of the child and is capable of providing a peaceful atmosphere to the child in his house. Further contention raised is that, the respondent is not having financial capacity to provide the needs of the child. The appellant also contended that he being the father is the natural guardian who is entitled to get custody of the minor child.

(3.) Evidence adduced before the court below consisted of oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 on the side of the respondent and CPW1 and CPW2 on the side of the appellant. Exts.A1 to A2 are the documents marked on behalf of the respondent and Exts.B1 to B9 are documents marked on behalf of the appellant.