JUDGMENT :

(Devan Ramachandran , J.)

This appeal virtually has run its course; and as we will presently record, no further directions may be necessary.

2. However, we take this case as an opportunity to state something that is far more important, particularly qua the mental and physical health of children, who are caught in the cross-fire of litigation between their parents.

3. We have delivered judgment in Indu S. v. Thomas@Manoj reported as [2025 (3) KHC 295] emphatically declaring that children shall not be subjected to unnecessary presence in court premises; and we have done so being fully aware that this creates deep trauma for them.

4. However, in the case at hand, we see that when the learned Family Court made an arrangement regarding the interim custody of the child involved, the exchange was directed to be done at a police station. In our view, this is worse than the child being forced to court premises and spaces and are sure that it requires no further expatiation or restatement. In that view, and particularly adverting to the directions issued in Indu S. (supra), we fail to understand how the learned Family Court could have directed the child to be handed over in interim cus