Alexander Thomas, J.

1. The appellant herein (Bushara/wife) is the respondent in O.P (G&W) No. 2192/2013 filed before the Family Court, Attingal, by the respondent herein (Shibinu/husband) with the prayer for permanent custody of his minor son after declaring him as the guardian. The marriage between the appellant herein (wife) and the respondent herein (husband) was solemnized in accordance with the customs and rites of Muslim community and a son was born in their wedlock. The marriage got strained and the respondent herein (husband) pronounced talaque on the appellant herein (wife) on 16.3.2013. Thereafter, the respondent herein (husband) filed the above said original petition before the court below for declaring him as the guardian of the minor son and for his permanent custody. The court below held that, as per Section 352 of the Mohammedan Law, the mother is entitled to the custody of the minor male child until he has completed the age of 7 years and that it is settled law that the court has discretion to pass appropriate orders overlooking such personal law in the light of the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act and that the court below finds no reason to disqualify the mother to have custody of the minor son until he completes the age of 7 years and that orders passed in respect of custody of the child can be altered in change of circumstance. The court below specifically considered the issue as to whether the father is capable of taking care of the child, keeping in view his employment responsibilities and came to the conclusion that the father, who is working in Malappuram district, will not be able to look after the affairs of the minor child when compared to the mother, who is not employed. For that reason the court below reached the considered conclusion that for the time being the permanent custody of the child cannot be given to the father and that there is no necessity to grant a declaration as prayed for.

2. But the court below granted certain limited visitation rights and custody of the minor child to the respondent herein (husband) during Onam, X'mas and summer vacation of the school etc. The court below held in the impugned judgment as follows:

“a) Until the child completes the age of 7 years, the father is allowed to have only a right of visitation and custody during holidays of Onam and X'mas and summer vacation of the school by directing the mother to hand over the child to the father for one week during Onam and X'mas Holidays and for a fortnight during April and May of every year. The father shall serve a notice to the wife or her counsel to cause production of the child before the court on each occasion for the said purpose and parties shall hand over the child at the court premises by making necessary entries in the records maintained by the court for the said purpose.

b) The father is also allowed to have the company of the child from 10 a.m to 3 p.m. on every working alternate Saturdays, for which also he shall give prior intimation to the wife or her counsel and he shall bear the expenses for bringing he child to the court and return.

c) Parties are at liberty to approach this court, if they want any alteration of the above arrangement on valid grounds by filing application.

d) Regarding the custody of the child after the child completes 7 years further orders will be passed on application of the father, until that time the custody will be with the mother, subject to the above conditions.

e) Since both the parties are natural guardians, in the given circumstance, I am not inclined to declare the father alone as the guardian as prayed for.

f) No orders as to cost.”

Accordingly, the court below held that the custody of the minor child until he reaches the age of 7 years will be with the mother subject to limited visitation rights and interim custody during holidays as stated above and that the issue regarding the custody of the child after he completes the age of 7 years, is to be de