AMRUTHA Vs. J. BALAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, the wife of the respondent, filed Ext.P3 MC under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and sought for a protection order and compensation for Rs.3 crores. She has also filed a petition for return of gold ornaments. The respondent/husband has filed OP under the Guardian and Wards Act for appointing him as the guardian of the minor child and to hand over custody. The Family Court, as per Ext.P5, was pleased to order only the access of the child in the court premises. He has challenged Ext.P5 before this Court and this Court, by Ext.P6 judgment directed the court below to pass a reasoned order after ascertaining the factual aspects. In the light of Ext.P6, the court below was bound to consider the factual contentions with regard to the safety of the child, if the child is handed over to the respondent. But, later GOP No. 1501 of 2016 was dismissed for default and thereafter this Court, by a common judgment in OP(FC) Nos. 341 and 393 of 2019, remanded the matter and after condonation of delay, GOP No. 1501 of 2016 was restored. I.A. Nos. 4810 and 4184 of 2019, which were filed seeking custody during Onam vacation and the custody pending disposal of the OP, were also allowed by the court below by the impugned order under Ext.P16. Highly aggrieved by the same, this OP(FC) has been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is eminent threat to the safety of the child, if overnight custody is granted to the respondent, and that the issuance of Ext.P16 order is illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for both the parties argued strenuously and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by the court below is illegal and unjust. He has further submitted that overnight custody of the child may be avoided and the petitioner has no objection in handing over the custody of the child during the day time.