V N GIRISHKUMAR Vs. HEMAMALINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam passed in Crl.M.P.No.6970 of 2011 in D.V.A.No.5 of 2011 by order dated 27.12.2012 and subsequently modified by the learned III Additional District Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.6 of 2013 by an order dated 28.02.2013.

(2.) The brief facts of the revision petitioner in the revision petition are as follows :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Courts below have miserably failed to understand and appreciate the statement made by the child. The child has categorically stated that she is not willing to go with the mother namely the respondent. The learned Judge's have even recorded the statement of the child, she did not even look at the face of the respondent. When that being so, the learned Judge should have appreciated the fact that the welfare of the child is paramount. The learned senior counsel further submit that only after enquiry made by the learned Judge to the minor child personally, the child refused to speak or to go with the respondent, the visitation right was given without representing the rights of the mother to take care of the child. The genuineness of this problem arose when the respondent objected to the presence of the first daughter of the first petitioner in the family. The first petitioner is taking good care of both the daughters, therefore, peace and enjoyment of the minor child is not disturbed.