THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.687 of 2008 Dated:- 08th December, 2010 Between:- K.Santhanam …Appellant / Petitioner AND Smt.S.Jayanthi …Respondent / Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.687 of 2008 JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2007 passed in G.O.P.No.228 of 2005 by the III Additional District Judge at Tirupati, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of his minor son was dismissed with an observation that the appellant – husband is permitted to visit and see his minor son once in a fortnight on prior intimation to the respondent – wife and the respondent – wife was directed to allow the appellant to see and talk with the minor son. 2. The matter underwent several adjournments and when the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 22.11.2010, learned counsel for both the parties have agreed for appearance of the parties as well as the child before this Court, so as to ascertain the views of the child for the purpose of granting his custody / visiting rights. 3. Today, both the parties as well as the child are physically present before this Court. We have interviewed the child in the Chambers and he submits that he is comfortable with his mother and wants to stay with his mother. He further submits that he is studying in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam School at Tirupati and he is standing number one in the class. 4. There cannot be any doubt that ultimately, priority should be given to the welfare of the minor child rather than the parties. Admittedly, the appellant is working as advocate clerk in Chennai and his parents are also very old. Admittedly, the child is still a minor and is studying in TTD School as stated above and he states that he is a meritorious student. That being so, we are of the view that custody of the child cannot be given to the appellant – husband, for the reason that the child himself wanted to stay with his mother, and if the custody of the child is given to the appellant, it will not be in his interest and there is likelihood of his getting mentally disturbed, which may adversely affect his welfare and bright future. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Court below. 5. However, both the parties and their respective counsel have expressed no objection for interaction of the child with his father – appellant herein. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to modify the order of the Court below and grant visiting rights to the appellant/father as follows:- i) The respondent – wife is directed to produce the child before Mr.T.Narasimha, junior advocate of Mr.M.Dorai Raj, learned counsel for the respondent – wife, in his office, on every first and third Sunday between 01:00 P.M. to 03:00 P.M. and in his presence, the appellant – husband is permitted to interact with the child. ii) The above arrangement is only for three visits. Thereafter, with prior intimation, the appellant is permitted to visit the child in the house of the respondent – wife. 6. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The parties are at liberty to approach the Court below for any further directions in the matter. ________________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMAMA _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 08th December, 2010 Bvv