Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2342 (MAD)

J. Selvan v. N. Punidha

2007-07-26

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2007
Judgment : V. Ramasubramanian, J. This is a petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by the father of two minor children by name S. Kishore Kumar and S. Praveen Kumar. The mother of the minor children is the respondent herein. 2. The petitioner took out an application in A. No. 1858 of 2006 for interim custody of the minor children, for the vacation in May 2006, on the ground that the orders passed in earlier applications for visitation rights and for interim custody in A.No.4773 of 2003 and A.No.4641 of 2005 were actually frustrated. In the said application A.No.1858 of 2006. I passed an interim order, permitting the petitioner to take interim custody of the minor children on 20.4.2007 and return the children on 24. 2007. On the ground that the said order was disobeyed, the petitioner took out a contempt petition in Contempt Petition No.447 of 2007. 3. However, upon finding that both parties have already adduced evidence and the Original Petition itself was ripe for final disposal, I directed the learned counsel appearing for both sides to file written arguments, so that the Original Petition itself could be disposed of. Accordingly, Ms. lima Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent filed their written submissions. Hence, the Original Petition itself is disposed of by this order. 4. From the averments contained in the Original Petition and the counter filed by the respondent, it is seen that the following facts are not disputed:- .(a) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised at Vellore on 11. 1987. The minor S. Kishore Kumar was born on 14. 1990 and the minor S. Praveen Kumar was horn on 20.5.1994. .(b) The petitioner is employed in the Managerial Cadre in the State Bank of India. The respondent is not employed anywhere, though she claims to be running a Computer Centre at Nanganallur. .(c) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has not so far been dissolved by a decree of divorce, though it appears from the allegations traded by them against each other, that the marriage is irretrievably broken. 5. In brief, the averments contained in the petition are that the respondent suffered from an absolute negative attitude from the date of the marriage, leading to unpredictable behavioural pattern, which included abuses. 5. In brief, the averments contained in the petition are that the respondent suffered from an absolute negative attitude from the date of the marriage, leading to unpredictable behavioural pattern, which included abuses. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent always suspected his fidelity and caused many embarrassing situations when they lived together at Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri, Coimbatore, Tirunelveii and Tenkasi. According to the petitioner, the respondent suffered from delusions and hallucinations and always charged the petitioner of having illicit intimacy with any women whom he came across. The petitioner has narrated a few incidents in paragraph-10 of the petition, to highlight the mental aberrations that, the respondent had. In April 2002, the respondent forcibly took the children away from the matrimonial home at Tenkasi. After great efforts, the petitioner found the children in Don Bosco School, Peravallur. Since he did not want to disturb the children, the petitioner opened a bank account in State Bank of India, Perambur Branch and asked the elder son to operate the account. But the respondent started effectively preventing the petitioner even from having access to the children. Even phone calls were disconnected and the respondent started brain washing the children, forcing the petitioner to come up with the present original petition. 6. The respondent has filed a counter, alleging cruelty against the petitioner. She has stated that the petitioner used to come home late in the night in an inebriated mood and that lie was womaniser. The respondent claims to have seen the petitioner in the company of other woman at Tirunelveli. According to the respondent, an Assistant Manager of the State Bank of India, Tirunelveli Branch, insisted on the petitioner marrying his daughter, on the ground that the petitioner had moved with his daughter closely for a long time. When questioned, the petitioner attacked her. In April 2002, the respondent went to Tenkasi and found the children staying all alone at home. She came to know that the petitioner had gone to Tirunelveli, leaving the children in the lurch, Therefore, she took the children away to Chennai and admitted them in Don Bosco Ma¬triculation School, Peravallur. According to, the respondent, she and her parents are taking care of the children. The respondent has also claimed that she suffered an abortion during the course of the third pregnancy, on account of physical cruelty on the part of the petitioner. According to, the respondent, she and her parents are taking care of the children. The respondent has also claimed that she suffered an abortion during the course of the third pregnancy, on account of physical cruelty on the part of the petitioner. She has further claimed that the petitioner once attempted to kill her by throttling her. The respondent claims that she is running a Computer Centre and that she has Fixed Deposits, with which she would be able to bring up the children. 7. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1. The Assistant Manager against whom the respondent made allegations, was examined as PW.2. The brother of the petitioner and a friend of the petitioner were examined as PW.3 and PW.4. 8. The Birth Certificates of the minors were filed as Exhibit P-1 and P-2. To show that after the respondent took the children away from him in April 2002, head been periodically attempting to communicate with her and to send money to her, the petitioner has filed the Courier Receipts as Exhibit P-3 series. These Receipts show that the envelops were addressed to the petitioners elder son. To show that he had come to Chennai to see the children in June and September, 2003, the petitioner has filed the copies of the train tickets as Exhibit P-4 series. Since the children were not found at Chennai, the petitioner sent a legal notice, the copy of which was filed as Exhibit P-5. The letters written by the petitioner to the respondent and to the children were filed as Exhibits P-6 to P-10. The complaints lodged by the petitioner with the Police and the acknowledgement received from them, were filed as Exhibit P-11 to P-13. The New Year Greetings sent by the petitioner to the children were filed as Exhibit P-14 and P¬ 15. The letter of the petitioner to the children and the e-Mail sent by the elder son to the petitioner were filed as Exhibit P-16 and P-17. The photographs taken on the birthday of the elder son were marked during the cross-examination or the respondent, as Exhibit P-18 series and Exhibit P-19 and Exhibit P20 series, The Life Insurance Policy taken by the petitioner jointly in his name and in the name of the respondent, on 28. 1995, was filed as Exhibit P-21. The photographs taken on the birthday of the elder son were marked during the cross-examination or the respondent, as Exhibit P-18 series and Exhibit P-19 and Exhibit P20 series, The Life Insurance Policy taken by the petitioner jointly in his name and in the name of the respondent, on 28. 1995, was filed as Exhibit P-21. The notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner and the reply given by the petitioner, were filed as Exhibit P-22 and P-23. 9. The respondent examined herself as RW.1. Her parents were examined as RW.2 and RW.3. The respondent marked six documents as exhibits on her side. 10. A letter dated 211. 1992 written by the brother of the petitioner, was marked as Ex¬hibit RI while cross-examining the petitioner as PW.1. A letter written by a colleague of the petitioner, was filed as Exhibit R-2, while cross-examining PW.1. The pay slip of the petitioner for the month of August, 1997, was filed as Exhibit R-3. A pamphlet regarding the opening of a Computer Centre by name Kishore Infotec, was filed as Exhibit R-4. The school record of the elder son issued in April 2002, was filed as Exhibit R-5. A similar school record in respect of the second son, was filed as Exhibit R-6. 11. In the background of the averments contained in the petition and the counter as well as the oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties, the issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the permanent custody of the minor children and as to whether it will be in the interest and welfare of the minor children, to be with the petitioner-father than with the respondent-mother. 12. It is by now well Settled that in all such matters, the interest and welfare of the minor children, arc of paramount importance, rather than the conflicting claims and interests of the parents. The right of the parents is not what is to be decided in these applications, but the right of the children to have a healthy environment and a physical, emotional and financial support for the development of their integrated personality, that is to be decided in these applications. 13. THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY has published a summary of the PRACTICE PARAMETERS FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION. The summary was developed by the Work Group on quality issues. 13. THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY has published a summary of the PRACTICE PARAMETERS FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION. The summary was developed by the Work Group on quality issues. It is seen from the abstract to the summary, that it was presented as a guide for clinicians evaluating the issues surrounding a child custody dispute. The study identified the issues that are common to all child custody disputes as "continuity and quality of attachments, preference, parental alienation, special needs of children, education, gender issues, sibing relationships, parents physical and mental health, parents work schedules, parents finances, styles of parenting and discipline, conflict resolution, social support systems, cultural and ethnic issues, ethics and values and religion." 14. Though the prevailing legal test is that of the "best interests of the child" test, the Courts have also postulated the least detrimental alternative" as an alternative judicial presumption. 15. Therefore, the issues that have arisen for consideration in this petition, have to be decided on the basis of the ability and willingness on the part of either of the parties to provide the minor children, a healthy environment, good parental care and guidance and a physical, emotional and financial support for the development of their integrated personality. .16. In so far as financial support is concerned, it is clear from both the pleadings as well as evidence that the petitioner alone is in a better position to provide any financial support to the children. The children are now aged 17 years and 13 years respectively. The elder son is due for entry into higher studies, and it is common knowledge that a strong financial support is essential at this point of time, for him to get into any professional course or even to pursue any other field of study. The petitioner is employed as a Chief Manager in the State Bank of India. The petitioner is now aged about 51 years. Despite the fact that the petitioner and the respondent have been living separately from the year 2001 (or at least from 2002 as admitted by the respondent), and de-spite his fairly decent social status, the petitioner has not chosen to seek dissolution of marriage in the past five years, in the interest of the minor children. Despite the fact that the petitioner and the respondent have been living separately from the year 2001 (or at least from 2002 as admitted by the respondent), and de-spite his fairly decent social status, the petitioner has not chosen to seek dissolution of marriage in the past five years, in the interest of the minor children. It is his case that even after the respondent took away the children in April 2002, he located them after great difficulty and started sending money for their educational expenses. This is proved by Exhibit P-3 series. In his deposition as PW.1, the petitioner stated that the respondent destroyed demand drafts worth Rs. 40,000/-. He has further stated that the respondent did not want his money to be spent on the children. There was no cross-examination of PW.1 on these aspects, by the respondent. On the other hand, the only attempt made by the respondent, during cross-examination of PW.1, was to show that the petitioner was a spend thrift and that his take home salary was very less and that he had. availed several consumer loans. Thus in essence, the respondent made no attempt during the cross-examination of PW.1, to establish that the petitioner was either incapable of offering or unwilling to offer financial support to the children, but made an attempt only to establish that the take home pay of the petitioner was very less. Con¬sequently, the claim of the petitioner that he was offering financial support and that it was being sabotaged by the respondent, went completely unchallenged by the respondent, during the course of evidence. 17. In contrast to the status of the petitioner as the Chief Manager o f a premier nationalised Bank, willing to support the children, the respondent appears to be unemployed. Though she claimed in the counter filed to the main original petition that she was running a Computer Centre, she has not produced any proof to establish the same. In any ease, the respondents claim was that she started the Computer Centre when they were in Tirunelveli. For the past four years, the respondent is in Chennai and she does not claim to be employed anywhere. In her evidence as RW.1, the respondent claims that her brothers gave her money with which three fixed deposits of Rs.2 lakhs each were made and that she is maintaining the children from out of those deposits. For the past four years, the respondent is in Chennai and she does not claim to be employed anywhere. In her evidence as RW.1, the respondent claims that her brothers gave her money with which three fixed deposits of Rs.2 lakhs each were made and that she is maintaining the children from out of those deposits. These deposit receipts have been filed by the respondent as Exhibit R-7 to R9, .18. When an application taken out by the petitioner-husband for interim custody in A. No. 1858 of 2006 came up for hearing, I questioned the respondent, who was present in Court, as to whether she is employed and what was her source of income. She admitted that she was not employed and that her brothers are supporting her. Such an attitude on the part of the respondent, refusing to accept any financial support from the father of the children, but accepting financial support from her brothers, can hardly be appreciated. Therefore, in the light of the pleadings and the evidence on record, I find that the petitioner alone is in a better position to provide financial support to the children and he is in fact, longing to provide such support (though it is refused to be accepted by the respondent). 19. The pleadings as well as the evidence record and the attitude of the parties towards each other and towards the children, also indicate that the petitioner is in a better position to provide a healthy environment and emotional support to the children. The reasons for my said conclusion are as follows:- .(a) While the petitioner is ready and willing to let the respondent have unlimited and un¬restricted access to the children, even if the original petition is allowed, the respondent is totally unwilling to let the petitioner have any access to the children. The respondent did not allow the children to make use of the gifts, computer and CD writers sent by the petitioner to the children. The repeated orders passed by this Court, granting visitation rights to the petitioner have been flouted by the respondent. In the first application A.No.4777 of 2003, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to accompany the petitioner to visit the children. The Commissioner filed a report, recording the fact that the children were comfortable with the petitioner and that the respondent was creating scenes. In the first application A.No.4777 of 2003, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to accompany the petitioner to visit the children. The Commissioner filed a report, recording the fact that the children were comfortable with the petitioner and that the respondent was creating scenes. When the petitioner came back to Chennai, cutting short his deputation and consequentially his promotional chances also, the respondent locked the house and took the children away, so as to prevent the petitioner from visiting the children. This necessitated the petitioner to file three applications viz., A.No.4641 of 2005, to permit him to visit the children on every Sunday to help them in their studies, A. No. 4642 of 2005, seeking a direction to the respondent to accept a sum of Rs.10,000/-for the maintenance of the children and A. No. 1002 of 2005, restraining the respondent from taking the children outside Chennai. On 1. 2005, an injunction was granted, but the other applications were closed in view of the fact that the matter was already at the stage or trial. Therefore, the petitioner could not visit the children. In A. No. 1858 of 2006, an order was passed on 14. 2007, directing the respondent to hand over custody of the children during vacation, from the evening of 20.4.2007 to the morning of 24. 2007, to the petitioner This order was disobeyed, forcing the petitioner to file a contempt petition. But as a clever ruse, the respondent filed an original side appeal and did not even bring it up for admission. Thus, the order passed on 14. 2007, was frus¬trated by the respondent. Hence it is clear that the respondent would not allow the children to enjoy the company of the father and his support, so long as she has permanent custody. On the other hand, the petitioner is willing to provide unlimited and unrestricted access to the respondent, if he is granted permanent custody. .(b) There can be no doubt about the fact that the children, who are deprived of the love and affection of one of their parents, tend to suffer from what is known as "parental alienation syndrome". Such a phenomenon was recognised by the Apex Court in Sheila B. Das v. P.R. Sugasree (2006) 2 MLJ 294 (2006) 2 LW 700. .(b) There can be no doubt about the fact that the children, who are deprived of the love and affection of one of their parents, tend to suffer from what is known as "parental alienation syndrome". Such a phenomenon was recognised by the Apex Court in Sheila B. Das v. P.R. Sugasree (2006) 2 MLJ 294 (2006) 2 LW 700. The evidence on record in the present case, points out to the fact that if the petitioner is granted perm anent custody, he is prepared not to deprive the children of the love and affection of their mother. But on the contrary, the respondent does not wish to reciprocate such a gesture. Moreover, PW.1 stated in his deposition that the children were comfortable with him even when the respondent lived separately for one year in the year 2001-2002. Even after the respondent took the children away, the children felt comfortable in the company of the petitioner, as stated in the report of the Advocate Commissioner. PW.4 corroborated the fact that the children were comfortable with the petitioner in the initial stages of separation. But today, the children appear to be a little withdrawn and this is obviously the result of the respondent tutoring and poisoning their minds. When the Application A.No.1858 of 2006 came up for hearing, the respondent, who was present in Court, vociferously submitted that the children are not willing to go with the father even for a single day. Admittedly, the children were taken away by the respondent in April 2002. If the children were comfortable in the presence of the petitioner even after two years of separation, as seen from the Advocate Commissioners report, it could be easily inferred as to what had changed their attitude in the recent past. If the petitioner had been of such a bad character, the children would have hated him even from the beginning. Since the children were comfortable with the petitioner even when he visited them in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner the only inference that could be drawn is that the respondent had actually cast a spell on them and poisoned their minds. This cannot be allowed resulting in the children ultimately suffering from "parental alienation syndrome". .(c) The petitioner has deposed as PW.1 that he had done all that a father could possibly do, to make the children blossom into good human beings. This cannot be allowed resulting in the children ultimately suffering from "parental alienation syndrome". .(c) The petitioner has deposed as PW.1 that he had done all that a father could possibly do, to make the children blossom into good human beings. The petitioner put the chil¬dren in Yoga classes. He sent them for Tennis and Swimming classes. He took the chil¬dren on vacation to several places. The petitioner opened a joint bank account along with his elder son in State Bank of India, Perambur Branch, even after the children were taken away from his custody. The petitioner provided a mobile phone as well as computer to the children, to enable the children not to develop any complex, on account of deprivation of things that their friends in school have. .(d) PW.1 has stated that the respondent left the matrimonial home in 2001, when they were in Tenkasi and shifted to the opposite house, where she started a Computer Centre. Interestingly, the respondent did not take the children along with her. Therefore, the petitioner took care of the children. Subsequently, it was only in March/April 2002 that the respondent took the children to Chennai. Though the respondent did not admit directly that she lived separately, leaving the children in the custody of the petitioner, she has made an indirect admission in the second half of paragraph-7 of the counter that she allowed the minor sons to continue in the marital home upto 23. 2002. She further admitted in the same paragraph that she went to Tenkasi on 20.4.2002 and brought the children to Chennai. Thus, it is borne out by the pleadings that in 2001¬2002, the petitioner was taking care of the children when the respondent was cooling her heels in her parents house at Chennai, .(e) The petitioner has made an allegation that the respondent suffers from a personality disorder. In his petition, the petitioner has narrated several incidents, in which, the respondent exhibited her suspecting nature of character and an abnormal behavioural pattern. Rather than denying those allegations, the respondent has come up with a counter, making a character assassination with the petitioner. She has described the petitioner as an alcoholic and a womanizer. But in her evidence, the respondent has failed to prove these allegations. Rather than denying those allegations, the respondent has come up with a counter, making a character assassination with the petitioner. She has described the petitioner as an alcoholic and a womanizer. But in her evidence, the respondent has failed to prove these allegations. On the contrary, the petitioner has proved, by oral evidence of one of his friends and one of his colleagues that he was neither an alcoholic nor a womaniser. In paragraph-7 of the counter to the main original petition, the re¬spondent has stated that she had seen the petitioner going with another lady near Seetharam Lodge and also near Vinayagar Temple at State Bank Colony. She has also further stated that an Assistant Manager of the Bank at Tirunelveli Branch visited their house one day in February, 2002 and insisted upon the petitioner marrying his daughter on the ground that the petitioner had moved with her closely for a long time. But the Assistant Manager referred to by the respondent, gave evidence as PW.2 denying any such incident. The Assistant Manager Mr. Ramanujam, deposed as PW.2 that the petitioner was a social person, who used to have good rapport with all the 14 Branches of the Bank in the District and that he was a Tennis player and a member of the Tennis Club. He further stated that the petitioner used to arrange several functions such as Independence Day arid Republic Day at the Bank and used to bring his minor children to the Bank on Saturdays and take them for shopping. He confirmed that the petitioner was not a drunkard. On the other hand, the petitioner used to advice his colleagues not to drink. A portion of the deposition of PW.2, which throws light upon the character and. behavioural pattern of the respondent, is extracted as follows:- "Once I went to Tenkasi for my daughters alliance and made a courtesy visit to Selvans house since he was posted there. At that time, Mrs. Selvan was present and she offered me food without evincing any interest. I did not inform Selvan about my visit to Tenkasi. After my daughters marriage, Selvans wife spoke to me over phone. First she enquired about my daughters marriage and then she told me that my daughter was going about in Tenkasi with Selvan in the streets and asked me why I did not stop this, and then she cursed my daughter. After my daughters marriage, Selvans wife spoke to me over phone. First she enquired about my daughters marriage and then she told me that my daughter was going about in Tenkasi with Selvan in the streets and asked me why I did not stop this, and then she cursed my daughter. For that I said such thing never happened. Even though I told her repeatedly but she never bothered to listen to me, so I kept the phone. Then again Mrs. Selvan rang up and my wife took up the phone and told me that Mrs. Selvan was speaking ill over on the phone, after listening to Mrs. Selvan, my wife was discouraged. Even after keeping the phone down and then we picked it up. Mrs. Selvan was still on the phone cursing my daughter, so, I finally disconnected the line. It is not correct to state that I went to Selvans house at Tenkasi to fix up the marriage of my daughter with Selvan, as stated by the respondent. I would not have gone to that house had I known that Selvan was not there. I have not heard that Selvan had misbehaved with any of the women bank employees or any ladies. My wife also told me that Selvan kept the others at the distance. Whenever Senior Officials come to our Branch, Selvan arranges for their stay at Bharani Hotel. Selvan had good name with the senior Officials. Selvan had good rapport with the Collector and the Police Officials, when my second son dies, Selvan was near me and helping me till the end of the funeral. Mrs. Selvan came to our house and saw my second son when he died. I do not know whether Mrs. Selvan spoke to my wife at that time. Selvan never had an opportunity to move or to talk with my only daughter. My only daughter had never seen Selvan, She did not have any opportunity to see him. My daughter is now married.” Instead of making a dent in the evidence of PW.2, the respondent actually made the case stronger for the petitioner, through the cross-examination of PW.2. In cross-exami-nation, PW.2 strongly confirmed the statements made by him in chief-examination and came out with a clear, coherent and convincing stand. My daughter is now married.” Instead of making a dent in the evidence of PW.2, the respondent actually made the case stronger for the petitioner, through the cross-examination of PW.2. In cross-exami-nation, PW.2 strongly confirmed the statements made by him in chief-examination and came out with a clear, coherent and convincing stand. The relevant portions of his cross-examination, are as follows:- "I emphatically deny the suggestion that I went to Tenkasi only to question Mr. Selvan, regarding his movements with my daughter and compelled him to marry her. I strongly deny the suggestion that there was whisper among the bank staff about Mr. Selvans movements with my daughter. The witness adds; Mr. Selvan is a good friend of mine even now, only because he is a good man and he has never moved with my daughter." "I was very emotional when Mrs. Selvan, told me about my daughter going along with Selvan. She told me that there were 1,000 persons and why should Selvan go along with my daughter. My wife was also very upset and she did not take food that day. Mrs. Selvan also told me that my daughter will not live happily and she will be ruined. Thereafter, I disconnected the phone, I told Mrs. Selvan that nothing wrong has hap¬pened and what she is stating is not true. I did not take any further steps for Mrs. Selvan accusing my daughter and in fact, I did not reveal it even to Selvan also at that time. Mrs. Selvan telephoned me twice and I disconnected. I deny the suggestion that I am speaking falsely just to support Selvan. I deny the suggestion that I have spoken falsely in my chief-examination just to support Selvan with regard to the allegations as against my daughter. I deny the suggestion that Selvan is a womaniser and drunkard." To disprove the allegations made against him by the respondent, the petitioner also examined one Mr. Nagajothi, one of his close friends, as PW.4. It is seen from his deposition, both in chief and in cross, that he had been a friend of the petitioner for 30 years from the year 1975 when both of them did PVC together. PW.4 is now working in Southern Railways as a Junior Engineer. Nagajothi, one of his close friends, as PW.4. It is seen from his deposition, both in chief and in cross, that he had been a friend of the petitioner for 30 years from the year 1975 when both of them did PVC together. PW.4 is now working in Southern Railways as a Junior Engineer. In chief-examination, PW.4 categorically confirmed that the petitioner did not have bad habits and that he took care of his children and family very well. As a matter of fact, the questions put to him in the cross-examination confirmed that as a family friend he even attempted to mediate between the petitioner and the respondent to bring about a rapprochement. Such a person testified to the character and antecedents of the petitioner. He also testified to the fact that the respondent did not even permit the petitioner to see the children and her influence over the children actually altered their very outlook and changed even their behavioural pattern. In the presence of the respondent, the children looked frightened to talk to the petitioner. He confirmed that the petitioner was interested in sports, tennis and trekking. In cross-examination, he narrated that the respondent always suspected the petitioner to be of a had character. The relevant portion of his cross-examination, which throws light upon the character of the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent, reads as follows:- "When I went there, Selvan was not there. I asked the respondent what was the real problem between her and Selvan. The respondent told me that Selvan was having vices like having connection with women and also drinking habit. For that, I told her that Selvan is of not that type and that I have known him from his childhood, and that, she has misunderstood Selvan. I deny the suggestion that I do not know personally about the personal activities of Selvan, as I was in Madras and Selvan was posted in several places, I know him, because he is my close friend and l know him very well." Towards the end of the cross-examination, PW.4 not merely denied the suggestions made by the counsel for the respondent but also went ahead and said that the petitioner was a gentle-man and that "if Selvan is a bad man, my wife would not have allowed him into our house". Thus, the petitioner, by the evidence of independent witnesses, has clearly established that the allegations made against him by the respondent, are false. On the contrary, the respondent failed miserably to prove those allegations against the petitioner. .20. The respondent examined herself as RW.1 and examined her mother and father as RW.2 and RW.3 She admitted in her evidence that the petitioner was a tennis player and that he used to go for tournaments. In cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know whether a drunkard could not be a good tennis player. She also admitted that the petitioner had a good relationship with the Collector and the Police Officials and that none of them told her about the vices of the petitioner. RW.2 admitted that she came to know about the activities of the petitioner only through the respondent and that she never complained about it to the petitioners brother or mother, RW.3 stated that he came to know about the problems between the petitioner and the respondent only through RW.2. Thus, RW.2 and RW.3 had made only a weak attempt to support the case of their daughter. Their evidence in my considered view, lack credibility. As responsible parents, they have neither taken care of the interest of the respondent nor the interest of the minor children. There is no whisper in the deposition of RW.2 and RW.3 that they ever attempted to bring about any reconciliation. There is also no whisper that as the parents of the respondent, RW.2 and RW.3 ever spoke to any elder member of the family of the petitioner, either to apprise them of his character or to bring about an amicable settlement. Therefore. I am unable to give any credence to the evidence of RW.2 and RW.3. 21. Thus, by making false allegations against the petitioner, the respondent has proved herself to be a person of suspecting nature and abnormal behavioural pattern. Therefore, the respondent will not, in my considered view, be able to give a proper emotional and intellectual support to the children, who are now in their adolescence. As a person dependent upon her retired father and mother for physical support and as a person dependent upon her brothers for financial support, the respondent will not be able to provide a healthy atmosphere and environment for the children to develop their personalities. As a person dependent upon her retired father and mother for physical support and as a person dependent upon her brothers for financial support, the respondent will not be able to provide a healthy atmosphere and environment for the children to develop their personalities. Her suspecting nature would cast a cloud upon the development of personality of the children. .22. On the other hand, the respondent provides a striking contrast. He is holding a Managerial position in a premier nationalised Bank. He is interested in sports and yoga. In spite of his marriage proving to be a failure, he has not chosen to seek divorce. If he was really a womaniser, he could have availed of this opportunity to seek divorce or to lead a wayward life. But the petitioner has been running after the respondent and the children from April 2002, sending the money, gifts and other articles and leaving no stone unturned, in his efforts to see the children and to do whatever he could towards their welfare. If the petitioner was an alcoholic and a womaniser, he could have easily made use of the opportunity provided by the respondent and totally kept away from the respondent and the children. A person accustomed to an easy life (as made out by the respondent), would not take the trouble of locating the children after they were taken away by the respondent and going after them, for the purpose of showing his affection and fulfilling his parental obligations towards his children. 23. Therefore, in the light of the parameters summarised by the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY VIZ., attachments, parental alienation, education, parents physical and psychiatric health, parents work schedules, parents finances, styles of parenting and discipline, social support systems, I am of the considered view that the petitioner satisfies the above parameters more than the respondent. 24. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner is entitled to permanent custody of the minor children. As conceded by the petitioner, it is always open to the respondent, to visit the children whenever she wants and the petitioner shall not resist the same. Accordingly, this petition is ordered as prayed for. It is open to the petitioner to take actual custody of the children forthwith. 25. In view of the orders passed in the main original petition itself, I am not passing any orders in the contempt petition. Accordingly, this petition is ordered as prayed for. It is open to the petitioner to take actual custody of the children forthwith. 25. In view of the orders passed in the main original petition itself, I am not passing any orders in the contempt petition. All pending applications are also closed. Pending applications closed.