Point of Law: A child has a human right to have the love and affection of both parents and courts must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of her/his parents.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

Considering the nature of the dispute involved, we direct to mask the names of the parties and the child.

2. The petitioner is the father of a child aged 7 years. The respondent is the mother. The petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order dated 05.09.2022 of the Family Court, Mavelikkara. As per the said order, I.A.No.3 of 2022 filed by the petitioner in O.P.(G&W) No.674 of 2022 for getting interim custody of the child was dismissed. The petitioner was, however, allowed to interact with the child between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon on the fourth Saturday of every month in the premises of the court and in the presence of staff on duty in the court.

3. On 27.09.2022, notice on admission was directed to be served on the respondent. The respondent entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit and in answer to that the respondent filed an additional counter affidavit.

4. On 21.10.2022, this Court directed the parties along with the child to be present in court on 28.10.2022. In terms of the said order, they had appeared. When we interacted with the parents as well as the paternal grandparents, we noticed that expert counselling is required to the petitioner and the respondent. The child was not responding openly. The child has inhibition to speak out and interact with the father. Parties were directed to attend counselling in the Family Counselling Centre attached to the High Court Legal Services Committee.

5. On 03.11.2022, having perused the report of the Counsellor and interacted with the child, his parents and paternal grandfather, they were directed to continue counselling in the Family Counselling Centre. The matter was again considered on 10.11.2022. No much improvement in the attitude of the child and the respondent was seen.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 15.07.2012. The child was born to them on 08.06.2015. Their marriage was separated as per the judgment dated 08.10.2021 in O.P.(HMA) No.229 of 2021 on mutual consent. They had entered into an agreement, Ext.P2, with regard to the custody of the child. They agreed that permanent custody of the child should be with the respondent and the petitioner has right of interaction with the child from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. on the second and fourth Saturdays every month. The petitioner was also allowed to have video conferencing with the child once in every week. The said arrangement did not last long. Alleging that every visit of the petitioner to the child at the house of the respondent was humiliating and he was not allowed to interact with the child freely and in a conducive atmosphere, the petitioner filed O.P. (G&W) No.674 of 2022 before the Family Court, Mavelikkara, Ext.P3. The relief claimed is that permanent custody of the child should be given to the petitioner. He also filed Ext.P5, I.A.No.3 of 2022 seeking an order directing the respondent to produce the child before the Family Court and give him interim custody of the child. That application was contested by the respondent. Alleging that the matter was not considered by the Family Court in the proper perspective, the petitioner filed O.P.(FC) No.500 of 2022 before this Court. After interacting with the child and the parents, this Court as per order dated 01.09.2022 directed the Family Court, Mavelikkara to hear and dispose of I.A.No.3 of 2022 on 05.09.2022. The Family Court, after interacting with the child and parents and also hearing both sides, on 05.09.2022 dismissed I.A.No.3 of 2020; however, permitting the petitioner to interact with the minor child between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon on the fourth Saturday of every month, in the premises of the Family Court and in the presence of the staff on duty. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitut