S. RUKMANGATHAN Vs. J. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent in I.A. No. 282 of 1997 in O.P. No. 292 of 1996, on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras, is the petitioner herein. The revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Petitioner herein filed a petition for divorce against the respondent. I do not want to delve into the allegations therein except stating that pending proceedings for divorce. Wife filed the above LA. for getting custody of the child. The Family Court ordered the custody of the child to be given to the mother, and the same is challenged in this revision.

(3.) In her application for custody of the child, namely, I.A. No. 282 of 1997 filed under Sec. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she has stated that a female child was born out of the wedlock, and she is now named as Deepika. According to her, the child was born on 12.12.1995, and from the date of birth, the child was in her custody. It is said that the main petition for divorce was posted on 10.3.1997. On that date, her mother -in -law and sister -in -law visited her father at hospital and informed that they are interested in reunion and also expressed their desire to take her back to the marital home, and they also assured that the main petition for divorce will be withdrawn. It is said that thereafter they also visited the respondent herein at Anna Nagar, where she is staying with her brother. On that day, respondent was taken out with all sorts of promises, and also with an assurance that her marital life will be peaceful and harmonious. According to her, she was treated well by the members of the family and she lived with them for four days. She came back to Anna Nagar since her father was hospitalised. Thereafter, on 17.3.1997 also, respondent husband's mother and sister visited her at Anna Nagar. It is said that thereafter, there was a compulsion from the mother -in -law demanding huge amounts, and she was also compelled to sign certain blank papers and she was sent back to her parents' house with a direction that she should not return unless she brings with her a sum of Rs. 50,000 for the purpose of her husband's business. The child was also retained by them. She tried her best to bring the child. But due to the vindictive attitude of her husband and inlaws, she was not allowed to take the child. It is said that the child is only about 15 months and is still under breast -feeding. The child should be kept in the custody of the mother, and that would be in the best interest of the child also.