The revision petitioner, who is the respondent in G.W.O.P.No.29 of 2016, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, has impugned the fair and decreetal orders, dated 11.07.2017, passed in I.A.No.260 of 2017 in G.W.O.P.No.29 of 2016. It is found that the respondents herein, seeking to appoint them as guardians of their minor grandchildren, namely, Akileswaran and Anushkashri, preferred G.W.O.P.No.29 of 2016. Pending the same, it is found that they also moved an application seeking for the interim custody of the minor children.
2. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioner on the footing that she being the natural guardian, the minor children should be only in her custody and the respondents are not entitled to seek for the interim custody of the minor children.
3. As seen from the materials placed, it is found that the revision petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the respondents. It is further found that the husband of the revision petitioner i.e., son of the respondents, namely, Vadivel had died subsequent to the marriage and thereafter, it is also further found that the revision petitioner contracted another marriage and according to the respondents, she is conceived. In such view of the matter, pending disposal of the main G.W.O.P.No.29 of 2016, they have prayed for the interim custody of the minor children at least for two days and the said application having been entertained by the Court below, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
4. The revision petitioner, though resisted the entitlement of the respondents to seek for the interim custody of the minor children, had admitted that they are entitled for the visitation right and see the minor children and according to her, the respondents are entitled to see the minor children only in her house and not to take the minor children from her house.
5. The Court below, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, finding that the revision petitioner had admitted the visitation right of the respondents and also finding that the revision petitioner is now living with her husband after remarriage, visiting the minor children by the respondents in the revision petitioner's house may create problem and affect the conducive atmosphere in the family and therefore, held that the custody of the minor children shall be, by way of interim custody, handed over to the respondents for two days i.e., every Saturday and Sunday and accordingly given a direction that the revision petitioner or her husband should hand over the custody of the minor children to the respondents on the morning of every Saturday at Meenakashi Amman Temple and the respondents should again hand over the custody of the minor children with the revision petitioner or her husband on the evening of every Sunday at the same Temple. Therefore, it could be seen that the Court below, taking into account the fact that the grandparents are also entitled to have the visitation right to see the minor children, had passed the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decision of this Court, dated 10.11.2016 in C.M.A.(MD) No.1149 of 2016 (M.Panchavarnam vs. Arthi). The said decision is taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
7. In such view of the matter, the Court below having taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case in the right perspective and passed the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference from this Court.
8. Resultanly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, considering the relief sought for in the main G.W.O.P., in the interest of justice, a direction is given to the Court below to dispose of the main G.W.O.P.No.29 of 2016, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Family Judge, Madurai.
.