HARI NARAYANAN Vs. MEENAKSHI NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No: 2768 of 2006 and FCOP.No: 1588 of 2006, dated 19.1.2007 by the learned Additional Judge, II Additional Family court, Chennai, whereas, the Transfer CMP has been filed to withdraw FCOP.NO.1588 of 206 from the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to any other Family Court at Chennai.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner and the respondent got married according to Hindu Customary Rites on 11.6.1997 at the respondent's house at Kottaiyur, Tamil Nadu. The said marriage was registered on 13.6.1997 under Serial No.22 of 1997 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Karaikudi. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was an Engineer and the respondent was a Medical Practitioner. After marriage they lived at Besant Nagar, Chennai. Subsequently, the petitioner went to USA for his higher studies on a student VISA and the respondent got a dependent VISA and accompanied the petitioner. A male child was also born to them out of the wedlock on 22.11.2001 at USA. From 2002 onwards misunderstanding arose between the petitioner and the respondent and all the efforts of the relatives to make them live together became futile. The petitioner was advised to leave USA and take the guidance and moral support of the elders in the family and only such family counselling could help the respondent to come out of her mental problems. With the idea of returning back to India and setting up an industry, he sold his house in Chestnut Street, California in the USA on 23.12.2005 and the same was against the wishes of the respondent. At the instance of the respondent, 50% of the sale proceeds US $ 145,298.85 equivalent to Rs.66,83,746/= was deposited to the escrow account of the respondent. Though counseling was carried out by a family Counsellor/Psychiatrist Dr.Harmesh Kumar. But the misunderstanding continued. On 7.2.2006 without informing the petitioner, the respondent and his son returned to India to attend the respondent's father's funeral. On 27.2.2006 the petitioner came to India. According to the petitioner though he had made several attempts, he could not sort out the differences between them and felt that there was no scope to continue to live with the respondent. Hence he filed a Petition for Divorce on the ground of cruelty and for custody of the minor child. The Divorce Petition has been taken on file as FCOP.No.1588 of 2006 by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai. The petitioner also filed I.A.No:2768 of 2006 before the said court for interim custody of the minor child for three weeks during Christmas Holidays in December and 11 weeks during summer holidays in June, July and August of every year pending disposal of the main Original Petition. The same was resisted by the respondent by filing a detailed counter denying the allegations mentioned in the divorce OP as well as the right of the petitioner. After enquiry the I.A., was dismissed. Aggrieved over the said order, this CRP is filed.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner, being the natural guardian and father of the minor child, he has every right to seek for interim custody of the child at least twice in a year during Christmas and Summer holidays of the school going child.