SHRINGAR MASCARENHAS Vs. GAYATRI MUTHU VAIDYANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the revision petitioner and the respondent filed OP.No.4379 of 2010 for dissolution of marriage and for divorce by mutual consent under section 28 of the Special Marriage Act on the file of the I Additional Family Court, Chennai. The petition was allowed and consent decree for divorce was passed on 09.08.2011. In the said consent decree, visitation right of his daughter was granted to the petitioner during weekends, family gatherings, functions and other important occasions. The child was under care and custody of the respondent/wife.

(2.) Subsequently, the revision petitioner filed an application in IA.No.1208 of 2014 for contempt committed by the respondent/wife under Sec. 15 of the Contempt of Court Act and IA.No.1209 of 2014 to modify the order dated 09.08.2011 made in OP.No.4379 of 2010 with regard to the custody of minor Tania Mascarenhas and direct the respondent to hand over the minor to the petitioner. The trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed both the applications filed by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved against the orders passed by the V Additional Family Court, Chennai, the petitioner is before this Court with the present revision petitions.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revisions submitted that one of the conditions imposed in the consent decree is that the custody of the child with the respondent, but the visitation right has been given to the revision petitioner. If the respondent/wife proceeds to abroad, the petitioner has to give written consent for their daughter to travel with the respondent/wife for the length of assignment and the respondent has to ensure that the education of the child will not be affected. In the year 2014, the respondent took the minor child with her to Singapore without giving any intimation or getting permission from the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner lost his visitation right and the respondent/wife disobeyed the order of the Court. The petitioner filed another petition to modify the order dated 09.08.2011 made in OP.No.4379 of 2010. The trial Court failed to consider the fact that the father has right to visit the child and also without his permission the child should not be taken to foreign countries, thus the orders of the trial Court warrants interference.