This revision petition is filed against the order passed in the interim custody application filed by the biological father in G.W.O.P.No.12 of 2016 filed by the grandparents, who are presently in custody of the minor boy namely, Vipin Srikaraghugan, who is 9 years old.
2.The facts involved in this case are that Divyapraba, who is the daughter of the revision petitioners was given marriage to one Prabushankar, the respondent herein on 26.02.2007 and the minor boy was born to them. Unfortunately, the family met with an accident, in which, Divyapraba died and thereafter, this minor boy was left with the custody of the revision petitioners, since his father, who is the respondent herein has gone to Saudi Arabia to take care of his avocation. Later, the respondent herein got re- married to another lady on 27.08.2015 and admittedly, he is now settled in Bangalore.
3.The revision petitioners have thought fit to get an order of the Court to get the guardianship of the minor boy and filed an application in G.W.O.P.No.12 of 2016 before the Principal District Court, Karur on 10.03.2016, to declare them as the legal guardians of the minor boy, in which, biological father was arrayed as the respondent. On 07.04.2016, the respondent has filed a counter in GWOP and also taken out an interlocutory application in I.A.No.35 of 2016, seeking interim custody of the minor boy. After considering the rival submission, the Court below passed the following order:-
''9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the interim custody of the minor Vipin Srikaraghugan is given to the petitioner Prabushankar after completion of the academic year 2016-2017. Till the, he is provided with visitation rights to take care of his son on every Sunday between 9.00 A.M and 9.00 P.M. On completion of the academic year, the respondents shall hand over the minor boy to the petitioner without any hesitation. It is further ordered that the petitioner is entitled to get transfer certificate and other records of the minor from the concerned school without the consent of the respondents.''
4.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners in G.W.O.P.No.12 of 2016 have preferred this revision petition, stating that the Trial Court has not applied its mind properly, while granting interim custody to the respondent. The ''Intelligence Quotient Test'' applied by the Trial Court is illogical and totally perverse.
5.However, the learned counsel for the appearing for the respondent submitted that the Trial Court has gone into the fact that the minor boy was willing to join with his father, who is now settled at Bangalore and getting a decent salary. The biological father, who has now got married to another lady, can show better care and love to the minor boy comparing to the revision petitioners, who are old enough and have some medial issues.
6.This Court, though not intended to test the reasonings of the Trial Court while granting interim custody, it could only see that when the young boy, hardly 8 years old, who is all along been taken care by the grandmother and grandfather till now, cannot be taken away from their custody as an interim measure and dislocate his roots, which is always subject to the disposal of G.W.O.P.No.12 of 2016. So, it is always prudent to maintain the status-quo till the disposal of GWOP. The custody of the child can be handed over to the appropriate person who will be the best person to take care of the child, after the conclusion of the trial in GWOP.
7.The welfare of the child is predominant and the Court should always act as parens patriae in case of minor boy. By interim order, dislocating the child and putting him in an entirely different atmosphere under the care and custody of strangers, though one of them may be his biological parent, is not conducive for the welfare of the child.
8.Therefore, this Court set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 05.11.2016 made in I.A.No.35/2016 with the following directions:-
(1)The Trial Court is directed to dispose of G.W.O.P.No.12 of 2016 expeditiously on preferential basis.
(2)The parties are requested to co-operate for speedy disposal. (3)Pending disposal of GWOP, the revision petitioners are directed to facilitate visitation of the respondent to meet his son.
(4)The counsel for the revision petitioners consented to provide such visitation facility every Sunday at any place convenient to both the parties.
9.Since the matter involves the interest of the minor boy, it will be appreciable, if the Trial Court is able to dispose of G.W.O.P.No.12 of 2016, before 30.09.2017.
With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The Principal District Judge, Karur..