Children's welfare must guide custody decisions, with equal emphasis on parents' visitation rights.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, whereby, one of his children – the elder twin, has been directed to be handed over to the respondent –mother.

2. Sri.T.Naveen – learned Counsel for the petitioner, argues that the order impugned is infirm because: for the first, the child does not want to go to the mother; and for the second, even assuming that his client could be directed to hand him over to the mother, specific orders for visitation ought to have been provided for, which has been not done. He, however, conceded that his client was only directed to produce the child before the Court on 05.06.2025, for being handed over to the mother; but argued that such a direction, without provisions for his client to have visitation and interim custody over the children was extremely unfortunate.

3. Though we have recorded the submissions of Sri.T.Naveen as afore, the fact remains that many events took place during the time this matter was pending before us.

4. We issued notice in this case to the respondent by special messenger on 05.06.2025; and on 11.06.2025, Sri.T.Naveen appeared for the petitioner, to submit that his client has no objection in handing over the child to the respondent; but that this will prejudice his schooling at Chennai. The parties were referred to Counselling as requested by them on that day; and we got a report from the Counsellor attached to the Family Counselling Centre of this Court thereafter. On 12.06.2025 we passed a further order, which as under:

-

“The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.T.Naveen, submits that his client is trying for the reunion of his family and that he has made it so clear before the learned Counsellor also.

The learned counsel for the respondent –wife, however, submitted that she requires to gain confidence before any movement in the afore direction can be fully thought of and therefore, requires both the children with her at least on 18.06.2025 and for a few days thereafter.

Sri.T.Naveen offers that his client will bring the child to this Court on 18.06.2025. Post on 18.06.2025. “

5. However, matters took a rather unfortunate turn thereafter, which is evident from the order of this Court dated 18.06.2025, below:

“Read order dated 12.06.2025.

2. Sri.T.Naveen, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that though his client is fully ready to hand over the child to the mother, he has been incapacitated from traveling to Kochi from Chennai because of a ligament injury. He offered that his client will pay for the flight charges for the mother to come to Chennai and pick up the child, as also to finance the latter's full trip.

3. Smt.R.Leela, appearing for the respondent, submitted that her client has apprehension of going to Chennai alone and picking up the child because of her earlier bitter experiences with the petitioner. She, therefore, prayed that her client be allowed to have someone to travel with her.

-

4. Sri.T.Naveen - learned Counsel for the petitioner, agreed that his client will defray the expenses for the assistant also.

5. In the above circumstances, in modification of the order dated 12.06.2025, we allow the respondent – mother to travel to Chennai, along with a person of her choice; and to then go and pick up the child and bring him to Kochi. She will produce the child before us on 23.06.2025, on which day, we expect the petitioner also to be present in person if possible. Needless to say, we record the undertaking of Sri.T.Naveen that his client will defray the entire expenses for the mother and her assistant as also for the child, for their travel.

List, therefore, on 23.06.2025.”