Point of Law: The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity.

JUDGMENT :

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This appeal is filed at the instance of the mother and maternal grandmother of a minor girl child born on 17/9/2014 in the wedlock between the first appellant with the respondent. The respondent-father moved the Family Court, Muvattupuzha for permanent custody of the minor child. The above case was tried along with the petition filed by the first appellant for return of gold, money and past maintenance. The petition filed by the first appellant has been dismissed. The petition filed by the respondent for custody was allowed granting him permanent custody subject to visitorial rights of the first appellant between 10 am and 5 pm on every first and third Saturdays of every month.

2. On 24/6/2013, the marriage between the first appellant and the respondent was solemnized. On 17/9/2014, the child was born. On 5/5/2014, the respondent went to Kuwait for a job. It was alleged that on 26/5/2015, the first appellant and the child were forcefully taken to the house of the parents of the first appellant. It was further alleged that the mother and brother of the first appellant were involved in forcefully taking the first appellant and the child. The child suffers from a disease viz. Global Developmental Delay Seizure Disorder (Dysmorphism and Hypotonia). The parties appear to be in loggerheads from the year 2015 onwards. The first appellant filed a petition for return of gold ornaments, money etc. on 5/7/2017. On 24/11/2017, the respondent filed the present petition for permanent custody.

3. PW1 to PW8 were examined on the side of the respondent. On the side of the appellants, the first appellant was examined as RW1. The Family Court, noting that the appellants are leading immoral life, gave custody of the child to the respondent-father. According to the Family Court, keeping custody of the child with the mother-who leads an immoral life would adversely affect the welfare and future of the child.

4. We shall first advert to the oral evidence adduced on the side of the respondent. PW1 is the respondent. He deposed that the child is being treated as an orphan as the first appellant is roaming with her male friends always from morning till evening, and on account of failure to take care of the child, the child was physically and mentally weak. It was further deposed by him that the first appellant and her mother (second appellant) are leading immoral life. PW2 is the power of attorney holder of the respondent. Ext.A2 series of photographs are marked through him. These are the photographs of the first appellant with one Sooraj. He also deposed that the first appellant, her mother and other relatives of the first appellant are leading immoral life. PW3 is the father of the respondent. He deposed that the second appellant used to stay in many houses and there are chances of the first appellant and the ward in custody likely to follow the suit of the second appellant. PW4 is the relative of the first appellant.

She deposed that the second appellant leads an immoral life and the child is being neglected in the house of the appellants. PW5 is the father of the first appellant. He deposed that his wife, the second appellant herein, after marriage of his daughter (first appellant) is living with unknown male persons. He also opined that the first appellant is likely to follow the footsteps of her mother in engaging immoral activities. PW6 is the person who claims to have intervened with the dispute between the first appellant and the respondent. According to him, it is due to the resistance of the second appellant and mother's sister, the first appellant is refusing to stay with the respondent. PW7 is the neighbour, who stated that he had occasion to repair household articles which were destructed by the first appellant. He also deposed that he has witnessed the first appellant roaming with strangers on a bike. PW8 is the neighbour. He deposed that he has witnessed the second appellant and her sister causing ruckus at t