The child’s welfare is paramount in custody disputes, balancing the rights of both parents while addressing maintenance obligations.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

We are considering these two appeals together since they involve the same parties, though bringing into fold two different causes of action.

2. Mat.Appeal.No.296/2025 has been filed by the appellant – Sri.T.V.Ganesh (who will hereinafter be referred to by his name for ease) against the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kasaragod, in OP(G&W).No.971/2022; while Mat.Appeal.No.297/2025 has been filed by him against the judgment of the same Family Court in O.P.No.337/2022.

3. Among the aforementioned Original Petitions, OP(G&W).No.971/2022 was filed by Sri.Ganesh seeking permanent custody of his daughter, who is now ten years in age; but, though the respondent – Smt.Saritha (who will hereinafter be referred to by her name for ease) remained ex parte, it has been dismissed, finding that the grant of such relief to him would not be beneficial to the child.

4. While so, Smt.Saritha had filed OP.No.337/2022 against Sri.Ganesh seeking past maintenance for herself and her child; and this has been allowed by the learned Family Court granting an amount of Rs.4,000/- to her for the period from 23.03.2019 to 31.12.2020; along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- to her daughter from 23.03.2019 to 23.03.2022.

5. Sri.Ganesh challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court in OP(G&W).No.971/2022, asserting that the learned Family Court has not assessed the factual situation properly and that this is manifest from the fact that he has not even been given rights of visitation over his child. Coming to the judgment of the learned Family Court in OP.No.337/2022, his contention is that the amounts imposed against him are excessive, particularly because Smt.Saritha was working throughout the period in question.

6. Sri.Ajit G. Anjarlekar, appearing for Sri.Ganesh in both matters, argued that the learned Family Court ought to have not granted any past maintenance to Smt.Saritha, though his client is willing to abide by the order of past maintenance to the child; but that he is now going through extreme financial crisis, which prevents him from doing so immediately. He then contended that the learned Family Court ought not to have dismissed OP(G&W).No.971/2022 because his client has every right, as the natural guardian, to be in custody of his child; and that, even if this had been found to the contrary, he ought to have been given necessary visitational rights over her. He thus prayed that both these appeals be allowed.

7. Sri.Suvin R. Menon – learned Counsel appearing for Smt.Saritha and the child in these cases, contended that the findings of the learned Family Court in O.P.No.337/2022 are without error because, it has confined the past maintenance to Smt.Saritha until 31.12.2020 only, since she had conceded in her evidence as PW1 that she was working as a school teacher, drawing Rs.8,000/- per month as salary, after that date. He pointed out that the learned Family Court has been circumspect in granting her only Rs.4,000/- as past maintenance from 23.03.2019 to 31.12.2020 because she had also admitted in her testimony that she was working in the same school with a much lesser salary of Rs.4,000/- per month, during that period. He argued that the minimum maintenance his client – as any other woman - would require is Rs.8,000/-; and this figure was kept in mind by the learned Family Court. He then pointed out that, as regards the child, the learned Court has only granted Rs.5,000/- per month as past maintenance; and that this is in fact exiguous for a child of that age, particularly because large amounts of money will have to be spent for her education