R DEVANAND Vs. RUKMANI @ MEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition has been originally filed to appoint the petitioner as the guardian of the minors, viz., Akshay Anand and Ashreya Anand. Subsequently the prayer in the Original Petition has been amended for grant permanent custody of the minors to the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this Original Petition is as follows :

(3.) In May 2008, the respondent suddenly went to get her uterus removed. Thereafter, she had stopped focusing on his son, going to his daughter's school, where she befriended with one Rajaraman. The respondent and the said Rajaraman would converse endlessly. During September 2008, the respondent went to her native place at Thenkasi. The petitioner realized that Mr.Rajaraman has also gone with his family to Thenkasi at the relevant point of time. The petitioner, however did not press the above matter further. The petitioner had taken his son to several doctors without his wife's knowledge because she would not accept that he was mildly autistic. At the same time, the petitioner was also asked to relocate to United States by his Company Satyam Computers. Accordingly, he went to United States on a short term visa in October 2008 and came back in December 2008. After his return to India, he found that his son's situation was turning worse and the respondent has not given proper care to his son. The petitioner was summoned to the school where he was studying and he was told hat his son had started beating the other children at school. Thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent went to Bangalore to have their son treated for his mental issues as he started hitting everyone at school because of delusionary images of other people beating him. The respondent has stopped involving the petitioner in the search for a school and insisting on him doing it alone. The petitioner's son was asked to leave many schools. When the matter stood thus, in the year 2009, when he had came from his office, he found that the respondent was chatting with someone and she hurriedly closed the chat window and went to the other room. The petitioner sat down for office work and noticed some conversations between her and Mr.Rajaraman addressing her as love. The petitioner also noticed some very cheap conversations between the respondent and her friend. The petitioner questioned the respondent and told her that she may have to go to the Court and at that time, she had apologised and said that she had a tendency to flirt because of her medication.