J O DEVADATTA Vs. SARAH VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioner in the main O.P., seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents or her men or agents from interfering with the custody of the minor child Sharon Sharon Rose under the care of the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings.

(2.) THE main O.P., has been filed by the applicant/petitioner praying for appointment of the petitioner as guardian for the person of the minor namely Sharon Rose.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents would submit in his arguments that the 1st respondent, after the death of her husband, because the natural guardian of the minor and the legal right accrued on her, cannot be measured by an order of injunction. He would further submit that the applicant is claiming the right of the custody of the minor child, by virtue of the adoption deed, which is not at all valid in law. He would further submit that there is no semblance of right which the applicant had over the child and the actual name of the child was Akilandeswari, but however, she was converted into Christianity and she was named as Sharon Rose, which is not correct. Similarly, he would also submit that the 1st respondent name is only Vijayalakshmi and she has not been converted to Christianity and her name was also falsely mentioned as Sarah Vijayalakshmi. He would further submit in his arguments that the 1st respondent is working as a nurse, after completion of nursing education and she is able to look after the child and therefore, she may be given the custody of the child. He would also submit in his arguments that the child is now 13 years old and she has now attained puberty and it is unsafe for a girl child to be in the custody of the applicant, omitting the care of the child. He would submit in his arguments that she is the only child of the 1st respondent and absolute stranger has taken the custody of the minor child under the guise of the document and there is nothing stated against the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has no adverse interest against the child and therefore, the claim of the applicant for interim injunction cannot be sustained.