N PUNIDHA Vs. J SELVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in OP No.659 of 2003 appointing the respondent herein as guardian for minors Kishore Kumar and Praveen Kumar.

(2.) THE respondent father filed OP 659 of 2003 with the following averments:THE marriage between the respondent and the appellant was solemnized on 9.11.1987. Both the minors Kishore Kumar and Praveen Kumar were born on 19.4.1990 and 20.5.1994 respectively. THE respondent was employed as Manager in State Bank of India at different places. THE appellant wife remained unemployed. Though they were living separately due to strained relationship, they did not seek dissolution of the marriage. From the time of marriage, the appellant was moving and acting with an absolute inactive attitude. She always suspected the conduct and fidelity of the respondent. When they were living together at Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri, Coimbatore, Tirunelveli and Tenkasi, many an occasion, the respondent husband suffered embarrassing situation. She was always complaining that he was having illicit intimacy with women. Due to the mental aberrations, she was not only talking ill of the respondent, but also others. In April 2002, the appellant forcibly took the children away, and they were living together at Tenkasi. THE respondent was not informed of the whereabouts of the children. Only after exercising great efforts, the respondent came to know that the children were admitted in Don Bosco School, Peravallur. In view of the education of the children, the respondent opened a bank account in the State Bank of India, Perambur Branch, and asked the elder son to operate the account. She effectively prevented the respondent even from having access to the children. Even the phone calls were disconnected. From the time onwards, the appellant was brain washing the children, and he was not allowed to meet the children. Under such circumstances, the respondent had no option than to file the OP for custody of children.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge by an elaborate order has held that the respondent was entitled to permanent custody of the minor children, and it was also open to the appellant to visit the children whenever she wanted, and the respondent should not resist the same.