R.SELVARAJA Vs. S.LATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 29.06.2011 in I.A. No. 401 of 2011 in G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2010 passed by the Learned Sub Judge, Perundurai. The Learned Sub Judge, Perundurai, while passing the orders in I.A. No. 401 of 2010 in G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2010 on 29.06.2011, has categorically observed that '... It is important that while examining the minor son, this petitioner has not at all raised any objection and after finding that his evidence is totally against this petitioner, as an after thought, this petitioner has filed this petition belatedly with malafide intention. Further it is important to note that in the petition this petitioner has prayed to scrap the evidence of RW2. But the RW2 is a major aged 45 years. Therefore the prayer in this petition to scrap the evidence of RW2 itself wrong and it would establish that this petition has been filed with sole intention to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer in the petition itself wrongly framed by the petitioner' and has come to a resultant conclusion that the minor is a competent person to give evidence and the Court has followed all norms before examining minor witness and as such, his evidence is sustainable and it need not be scraped and dismissed the application without costs'.

(2.) The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Husband submits that the Petitioner/Husband has filed G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2010 on the file of the Learned Sub Judge, Perundurai under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act praying for custody of his minor son aged 12, studying in 8th Standard and living with the Respondent/Wife.

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Husband urges before this Court that minor son has been examined as R.W. 3 in I.A. No. 401 of 2011 in G.W.O.P. No. 1 of 2010, notwithstanding the fact that in law, he cannot give evidence in respect of the dispute pending before the Court.