KALAICHEZHIYAN SRINIVASAN Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is order dated 21.6.2011 made in Application No.916 of 2011 in O.P.No.186 of 2010, whereby the learned single Judge declined to modify the earlier order dated 30.06.2010 in respect of visitation rights of appellant.

(2.) MARRIAGE of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 27.6.1997 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the couple moved to Dubai, where the appellant was working and respondent also got an employment as Software Engineer. Out of their wedlock, minor child "Nithyanand" was born on 10.03.2005. The appellant also started a restaurant in 2004 named "Balaji Bhavan" in Dubai and had a very good business. From out of their earnings, appellant and respondent purchased various immovable properties in and around Chennai and in the State of Tamil Nadu. Respondent has a younger sister by name Chitra, who is stated to have been separated from her husband and living with her parents, expressed her interest to come to Dubai to make a living. The said Chitra left her only daughter at her parents house and went to Dubai to live with the appellant and respondent. The said Chitra was taking care of the restaurant. After Chitra went to Dubai, differences arose between the appellant and respondent and relationship between appellant and respondent strained. When the appellant expressed his intention to disinvest from the restaurant, the respondent and her sister lodged a police complaint in Dubai against the appellant alleging that the appellant is trying to grab the restaurant from the respondent's sister - Chitra. In these circumstances, on 23.11.2009, the respondent and her sister left for India with minor child and left the child under the custody of respondent's parents and thereafter respondent and her sister went to Dubai leaving the child in India under the custody of their parents. From then onwards, the couple were living separately in Dubai. After return of the respondent to Dubai, differences deepened. Regarding the immovable properties, there were number of litigations between the parties viz., Suit - O.S.No.140 of 2010 in Principal District Court, Chenglepet and O.S.No.584 of 2010 before the Alandur District Munsif's Court. The appellant had also filed criminal case against the respondent in Dubai for Cheque bounce case. In the said case, Dubai Court found the respondent guilty and she was imposed sentence of three months. Challenging it, the respondent has also preferred appeal. It was stated that while imposing the sentence, the passport of the respondent has been impounded and therefore she is not in a position to move out of Dubai.

(3.) DURING the continuance of the above arrangement, appellant has filed A.No.916 of 2011 seeking for modification of the original order dated 30.06.2010. The modification sought for by the appellant is to permit him to have the custody of the child "Nithyanand" with suitable visitation rights to the respondent. The appellant had alleged that he is travelling to India from Dubai every alternative week and incurring huge expenditure of about Rs.1 lakh per month and if he is granted the custody of the child, the said amount could be utilised atleast for the benefit of the minor child. The appellant has also averred that the child was studying in Cambridge International School in Dubai, which is of International standard and in India the child is put in Sharanalaya Public School, Viduthalai Nagar, Chennai, which is not of equal high standards. The appellant had also alleged that he had taken insurance policy for the education of his son with periodical endowment benefits for which he and his wife are paying the premium. The appellant had also alleged that custody of the child could be given to respondent/mother with visitation rights to the appellant, which would enable him to save the trouble of flying down to India every alternative week and would also save huge sum of money.