Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1851 (MAD)

K. Shakila Banu v. S. Sheik Dawood

2017-07-04

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : The petitioner in G.W.O.P.No.14 of 2016 is the revision petitioner. The said G.W.O.P. has been laid by the petitioner to appoint her as the guardian of the minor S.Noorul Tharifah. 2. The respondent herein is admittedly father of the said minor child. 3. Pending the above said G.W.O.P., the respondent had preferred I.A.No.330 of 2016, seeking for interim custody of the minor child for fifteen days till the disposal of the main G.W.O.P. The said application had been strongly resisted by the revision petitioner by filing a counter. It is found that the parties are provided with the opportunity of adducing evidence in support of their contentions and accordingly, on the side of the respondent / father, Exs.P1 to P10 were marked and on the side of the revision petitioner, no document has been placed. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the entitlement of the respondent / father, the Lower Court, after seeing the affection shown by the minor child towards both father / respondent as well as grandmother / revision petitioner, had ordered that the respondent / father is entitled to have the custody of minor child for fifteen days and for the remaining fifteen days, the minor child should be with the custody of the revision petitioner / grandmother on certain conditions / directions. 5. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. However, considering the impugned order passed by the Lower Court, the entitlement of the father to have the custody of the minor child and also taking into consideration that in such matters child's welfare should be of permanent consideration, it is found that the Lower Court has rightly ordered the custody of the minor child for a period of fifteen days with the respondent / father. In such view of the matter, I do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the Lower Court directing the custody of the minor child to the respondent / father for a period of fifteen days. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the relationship between the parties and the minor child's welfare, I am of the opinion that a direction should be given to the Lower Court to dispose of the main G.W.O.P., within a particular time frame work. 7. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the relationship between the parties and the minor child's welfare, I am of the opinion that a direction should be given to the Lower Court to dispose of the main G.W.O.P., within a particular time frame work. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with a direction to the Lower Court to dispose of the main G.W.O.P.No.14 of 2016, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report the same to this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.