R MURUGA PERUMAL Vs. J RADHAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Order and Decree in I.A.No,572 of 2008 in H.M.O.P.No.131 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. In the petition the following have been stated: The petition filed in H.M.O.P.No.131 of 2008 against the respondent/husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Out of the lawful wedlock, a female child was born on 30.4.2003 at Kasthuri Hospital, Tambaram, Chennai. The petitioner got admission at R.St.Mary's Matriculation School, Nandivaram, Guduvancheri in 2006. The respondent/husband was not present at the time of admission in the school. The petitioner was working as a teacher in that school. On 16.03.2008 the respondent took the child and now she is with the parents of the respondent. The petitioner is willing to educate her in the same school. If she is allowed with the respondent, her life and education will be spoiled. Hence the petitioner is seeking interim custody of the child.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that on 12.03.2008 the petitioner had handed over the child to him by saying that Suwaasha's life will be prosperous in future only under the custody of himself and after that she left the family and went to her parents' house. Now the child is aged about 6 years, she is going to school regularly. The present petition is not maintainable and the petition has to be filed under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956. IN the main petition for divorce, the petitioner has not whispered anything regarding the custody of her daughter. Only to harass him and the child, the petition has been filed. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) REPELLING the arguments, Mr. C. Ravichandran learned counsel for the respondent would state while the welfare of the child is considered, since it is a female child, it must be with the mother and that the respondent is a teacher who would be more concerned with the welfare of her daughter and that nothing warrants interference with the order challenged.