JUDGMENT

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(G&W) No.1038 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Nedumangad. As per the judgment dated 27.09.2022, the Family Court dismissed that original petition, which is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

2. This appeal was admitted to file on 13.12.2022. Pursuant to notice, the respondent entered appearance through her learned counsel. On 21.12.2022, the appellant has filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking interim custody of the minor, Vedhika A.Nair, aged 8 years now. He was granted interim custody of the child on 24.12.2022 from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

3. When the appeal came up for consideration on 11.04.2023, we directed both parties to personally present along with the minor child before Court at 10.15 a.m. on 12.04.2023. In terms of the said order, both parties personally appeared in court along with the child today (12.04.2023) at 10.15 a.m. We have interacted with both parties and the child. Thereafter, they were referred for counselling at the Family Counselling Centre under the Kerala High Court Legal Services committee. Both parties along with the child, after counselling, appeared again at 3.00 p.m. before us. We have interacted with them individually. We perused the report of the Counsellor placed before us in a sealed cover.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 16.10.2011. Vedhika A.Nair is their child. Following estrangement in their marital relationship, their marriage was dissolved. The appellant had filed O.P.(G&W) No.881 of 2015 before the Family Court seeking to appoint him the legal guardian of the child and to give him custody. The parties had entered into a compromise and O.P.No.881 of 2015 was disposed of in terms of that compromise. The appellant was allowed to have interaction with the child on 1st Saturday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. There were allegations that the respondent was not complying with the stipulations in the said compromise decree. The appellant eventually has filed O.P.(G&W) No.1038 of 2022 in order to get the arrangement regarding custody of the child as per the decree in O.P.(G&W) No.881 of 2015 modified and to allow him to have permanent custody of the child. The respondent filed a detailed objection, wherein she refuted the allegations raised by the appellant. The respondent took the stand that there was no circumstance necessitating modification of the compromise decree. It was further contended that the intention behind filing the present original petition was to harass the respondent and that in order to safeguard the welfare of the child, her custody should be retained by the respondent.

6. The Family Court at the trial examined the appellant as PW1 and the respondent as DW1. Ext.A1, copy of the birth certificate of the child, was marked also. After hearing both sides, the Family Court took the view that there was no need to vary the stipulations in the compromise decree in O.P.(G&W) No.881 of 2015. The appellant besides claiming permanent custody of the child sought a decree of injunction restraining the respondent from taking the child away from the jurisdiction of the court and also from taking the child abroad. That relief also was declined holding that there was no reason to have such an apprehension.

7. The appellant is working in a company in a responsible position. The respondent is a College Lecturer. The child is now aged 8 years. She is studying in the III Standard. It appears that the child has some extracurricular activities of uploading programmes on YouTube. During interaction, the child, pointing out those reasons, expressed her hesitancy to go along with the father. She does not want to say away from her mother. The respondent also stated that all throughout the child has been with her and separating