Mrs. Ume-.E-Hani vs Mr. Syed Faisal Madni

N. Ananda

The petitioner (mother), aggrieved by the order made in Crl. Appeal No.25047/2010 regarding the interim custody of child is before this Court.

I have heard Sri Amar Con-ear, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Melanie Sebastian, learned counsel for the respondent.

As could he seen from the proceedings that petitioner and respondent have fallen apart they have a male child born on 03.08.2005. As of now, the child is aged about G years, 4 months. The child is studying in Preparatory Section of Baldwin''s Boys High School, Hesur road, Bangalore. The Trial Court had directed the respondent to handover custody of the child on the ground that the atmosphere of the house of the respondent is not congenial and there are serious allegations of domestic violence against the mother of respondent.

The learned Judge of the I appellate Court hearing in mind the welfare of child and also taking into consideration the fact that respondent has been providing education to the child and child has been in the custody of respondent, modified the order passed by the Trial Court and granted visitation rights to petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

As could be seen from the provisions of the Act and the orders made by the courts below, the order made by the 1 Appellate Court, will be in force till the disposal of ease before the Trial Court.

The law is fairly well settled that the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration in the matter of custody of child. After going through records and the orders made by the courts below. I find that the respondent has been taking care of child and he has been providing education to the child in one of the reputed schools. The child has been attending the school for two years. The education of child/is one of important considerations. As the father, respondent has been providing education to the child in a reputed school, the entrustment of child to the custody of mother during the entire period in a week may hinder the education of child. The learned I Addl. Judge taking all these facts into consideration has modified the order passed by the Trial Court.

The learned Judges of this Court Justice V. Jagannathan and Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana had secured the child and parties and they have made attempts to reconcile, but the parties were not prepared to reconcile their differences. These learned Judges have also interacted with the child and have felt that child was comfortable with his father and child was also comfortable with his mother during his stay at week ends.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is now studying in 4th semester BBM. In the circumstances, it is not possible for petitioner take care of education of her child. Therefore, there are no reasons to disturb the present arrangement. However in order to bring rapport between petitioner and the child, present arrangement needs slight modification. Therefore, I pass the following order.

(i) The petition is accepted in part.

(ii) The respondent shall leave the child in the residence of petitioner at 2.00 p.m. on every Saturday and the child should be allowed to stay with the petitioner till 6.00 p.m. on the following Sunday. Thereafter respondent shall take back the child and shall take care of education of child.

(iii) The learned Trial Judge shall decide the case in terms or the order made by this Court in Crl. Petition No. 102/2011 dated 10.01.2011 for which both parties shall extend their cooperation.