It was further urged that the High Court had number properly appreciated the fact that when the respondent wife left the matrimonial home in July, 2004 to pursue film and television career, she left Anisha behind when she was only 2 years and 4 months old, thereby virtually abandoning the child when she needed her mothers care the most.
For more than 2 years she did number have any companytact with Anisha till in May, 2005 she forcibly removed Anisha from her paternal grandmothers custody.
Despite the said legal position, the High Court, after carefully companysidering the various other aspects companyducive to the childs welfare, and despite the interim order of custody in favour of the petitioner husband, chose number to interfere with the order of the Family Court and directed that the custody of minor Anisha should companytinue to be with her mother, the respondent herein, and that sufficient access provided to the petitioner father would meet the ends of justice.
The petitioners prayer for Anishas custody, therefore, was rejected and being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner husband has filed the instant Special Leave Petition.
On 24th November, 2005, with the help of police personnel from Chamboor Police Station, she took away Anisha from the custody of the petitioners mother.
Despite the finding that during the period when Anisha was in the petitioners custody she had been well looked after and cared for and the petitioner had dutifully discharged his parental responsibility towards her.
the Family Court granted interim custody of the child to the petitioner husband pending hearing and final disposal of the Custody Petition.
On 20th December, 2005, the Family Court granted weekend access visitation right to the respondent wife and by a subsequent order dated 15th September, 2006.
Two appeals being Family Court Appeal No.29 of 2007 and Family Court Appeal No.61 of 2007 were filed by the petitioner husband and the respondent wife respectively.
Having dealt with the relevant provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, since the parents as also the minor is a Hindu and while passing the final order the Division Bench was fully alive to the fact that under Section 6 of the above Act the father is the natural guardian of the person of the minor during his minority.
On behalf of the petitioner husband it was urged that the judgment and order of the High Court suffered from various infirmities.
The child remained in custody of the petitioner father between November, 2005 and 2nd February, 2007, when the husband was directed to make over the custody of the child to the respondent wife and since then she has been in the custody of the respondent wife.
The nuclear family, along with the mother of the petitioner husband, resided together at Chamboor, Mumbai till July, 2004 when, for whatever reason, the respondent wife left the matrimonial home to stay with her parents at Bandra.
In fact, at one stage this matter also once appeared before us and certain specific directions were given regarding the manner of access of the petitioner husband to Anisha.
The petitioner and the respondent got married in Hyderabad on 11th August, 2000.
The Family Court Appeal No.29 of 2007, which was filed by the petitioner husband, was directed against the judgment and order of the Family Court directing that custody of the minor child be made over to the respondent wife.
The petitioner recovered the custody of the daughter on 30th November, 2005 and this resulted in both the husband as well as the wife filing separate Custody Petitions before the Family Court in December, 2005.
In the other appeal, the respondent wife challenged the order of access made in favour of the petitioner husband on every alternate weekend and to share 50 of the School Vacations with the petitioner.
It was submitted that having found that Anisha had been well looked after during the period of petitioners custody and the respondent wife was trying to poison the childs mind against the petitioner and having also held that from the psychiatric evaluation made that the respondent wife had a manipulative personality, apart from having a tendency towards psychosis which needed medical attention, the High Court erroneously chose numbere to interfere with the order of the Family Court directing custody of minor Anisha to be made over to the respondent wife.
A girl child, Anisha, was born on 2nd March, 2002.
While disposing of the pending appeals, the Division Bench of the High Court had occasion to companysider the legal and practical approach regarding custody of the minor in the light of the well established doctrine that in these cases, the welfare and interest of the minor was the paramount companysideration.
Altamas Kabir, J. These petitions involve the final stage of a custody battle on account of disruption and finally a break down of the marriage ties between the petitioner and the respondent.
