JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

The petitioner assails Ext.P11 order of the learned Family Court, Chavara, primarily to the extend that it did not give him overnight custody of his child, but confined it to only visitation, that too, for a few hours within the court premises.

2. Smt.Sulfia M.A – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Family Court has pre-judged all the relevant issues while delivering Ext.P11 order because, it appears to have proceeded on the assumption that the child will not be safe with her client at his residence, since his mother and sister are also residing along with him. She explained that a case has been registered against the appellant’s mother and sister on the complaint of the respondent; then and that for this sole reason, this Court obtained a wrong impression that the child will not be safe with them. She then argued that Ext.P11 is also in error since it has directed the child to be in custody of the father within the premises of the Court, even though this Court has, in Indu v. Thomas @ Manoj [ 2025(3) KHC 295 ], made it clear that children should not be ordinarily exposed to such places. He thus prayed that Ext.P11 be set as