KARUPPANNAN Vs. SUDHAMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein married the respondent in 1986 and a male child was born to them on 14. 6. 1987. THE respondent-wife instituted o. P. No. 5 of 1990 in the Court of District Judge, Salem against the appellant alleging that soon after the birth of the child, her husband developed a version towards her and drove away from his house. Some two weeks later he came to her residence and forcibly snatched away the child. All mediations failed and the husband refused to hand over the child. And considering the welfare of the child which is 21/2 years old, the husband must be directed to give the custody to the mother.

(2.) THE husband resisted the application contending that the wife chose to live with him only for a short time. THErefore she was practically residing in her mother s house. She treated him with contempt. After delivery, the mother and child were taken to her mothers place at Namakkal. THEre was nobody to look after the child or mother. His mother-in-law is employed as a teacher in Namakkal High School and so she could not attend on the child. When the child attained the age of 3 months, he brought his wife and son to his house at Varguarampatti and wanted his wife to stay there. But the respondent did not like to live with him in the village. His mother-in-law brought a car from Namakkal and took away his wife and infant son even without informing him. He longs for the company of his wife. He is prepared to take her back and lead a happy marital life. He undertakes to provide his wife with all comforts. THE child also cannot be brought up in congenial atmosphere in his mother-in-law' 's place at Namakkal. THE mother and brother' 's widow of the appellant are affectionate towards the child and bestowing attention on him. In the interest of the child and harmony of the family life, the custody of the child is to be with him only.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent also contended that there was illicit relationship between the appellant and his sister-in-law and hence it would not be conducive for the welfare of the child to remain in the custody of the father. I can at once state that except the statement of the wife in the witness box as P. W. I, there is no material to substantiate this wild allegation. Her petition is conspicuously silent on this aspect. There was not even a suggestion to this effect during the cross-examination of the appellant as R. W. I. So, I have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that this factor disentitled the father to have the custody of the child.