NITHYA VIDYAPRAKASH Vs. B SURESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE custody of minor child Rahul is the subject matter of dispute in this appeal revisions. Being aggrieved by the order of Family Court in I.A. No. 700 of 2007, the Appellant/mother filed C.M.A. No. 622 of 2010 seeking to set aside visitation rights to the Respondent. THE father has filed Revisions in C.R.P. NPD. Nos. 1598 and 1599 of 2009 seeking for custody of minor child Rahul instead of visitation rights. Since common points arise for determination, by consent of both counsels, Appeal and Revisions were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) EVEN though main point for consideration is as to what is best for the welfare of minor, to appreciate contentious points raised, it is necessary to briefly refer to the factual matrix and background of number of proceedings, which preceded the Appeal and Revision Petitions. Marriage of Appellant and Respondent was solemnised on 18.10.2000 and out of lawful wedlock, male child Rahul was born on 18.10.2001. Due to differences between spouses, Appellant-Wife filed H.M.O.P. No. 695 of 2004 seeking for divorce and Respondent/husband filed application G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2005 seeking for custody of child. By the intervention of well-wishers and family friends, a joint memo of compromise was filed by both parties. Based upon the joint memo of compromise, on 23.2.2005, Family Court, Coimbatore passed a decree of divorce in H.M.O.P.NO.695 of 2004 and compromise was recorded in G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2005. As per memo of compromise, custody of minor child Rahul shall remain with the mother viz., Appellant herein and father/ Respondent shall be entitled to visitation rights. As per joint memo of compromise, minor Rahul was with the mother and Respondent exercised his right of visitation.

(3.) AS per the terms of compromise decree, Respondent took child Rahul on 25.4.2009 for the first half of the holidays and as per the terms of compromise, he should have handed over the child on or before 17.5.2009. But the respondent has not handed over custody of the child and thereby violated the terms of compromise. Alleging that the respondent has violated the terms of compromise decree, Appellant filed I.A.No.636 of 2009 before Family Court, Coimbatore to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent for violating the orders of the Court. I.A.No.637 of 2009 was filed seeking cancellation of visitation rights. Even while the contempt petitions were pending before the Family Court, Challenging the common order in I.A.No.700 of 2007 and I.A.NO.56 of 2007, Respondent filed the Revision Petitions and obtained an interim order of stay on 24.6.2009. Challenging the order in I.A.No.700 of 2007 declining to set aside the visitation rights, Appellant/mother has filed the C.M.A.