JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam conceding that there is no error in it, but that her child is unwilling to stay with the father during the period when the latter has been granted the former’s interim custody, between 01.04.2025 and 25.04.2025.

2. Smt.Syama Mohan – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, though her client has already given interim custody of the child to the father as ordered by the learned Family Court, he is unwilling to stay with him and has, in fact, even tried to escape. She thus reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside.

3. Sri.V.B.Unni Raja – learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the child is not acting as per his own wishes, but appears to be tutored in the interaction he has with the mother even when he is in the interim custody of his client.

4. Before we move forward, we must record that the parties were before us today, along with the child. We interacted with the child, who unequivocally told us that he wants to return to the mother, not because he has any lack of affection for his father, but since he is more comfortable with the former. He