The child's welfare is the primary consideration in custody matters, and established comfort with a parent can favor visitation rights.

J U D G M E N T

C.S.Sudha, J.

This petition has been filed by the respondent/mother against the order dated 08/08/2023 in I.A.No.1448/2020 in GOP No.656/2020 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The respondent herein/father is the petitioner in the I.A. as well as in the GOP. The parties in this petition will be referred to as described in GOP No.656/2020.

2. The petitioner/father filed GOP No.656/2020 seeking permanent custody of his minor child aged 3½ years. According to him, his marriage with the respondent was solemnised on 06/01/2015 as per the rites and customs of the community to which they belong. In the wedlock, a girl child was born. Due to marital discord, the parties are residing separately. The respondent/mother is not permitting him to have any access to the child. Hence the GOP, in which petition he moved I.A.No.1448/2020, an application for interim custody of the minor child.

3. The family court by the impugned order granted custody of the minor from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on all Saturdays, custody for the first five days during Onam and Christmas vacations as well as the first 10 days of April- May during the summer vacation. The respondent/mother is aggrieved by the said order.

4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/mother that the child is just 4 years old and from the date of separation of the couple in the year 2019, the child has had no interaction, connection or rapport with the petitioner/father and therefore if overnight custody is given to the petitioner/father, it would to a great extent affect the well-being and welfare of the child. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/father with specific reference to the observations made by the family court in paragraph 3 of the impugned order that the child is quite comfortable with the petitioner/father and therefore there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Paragraph 3 of the impugned order reads thus - “3. Even though sufficient opportunities were given, the respondent has not filed objection to the present application. On 01/07/2023, the child was produced before the Court and she was produced before the Counselor. The Counselor has reported that the minor is moving comfortably with the father, but the respondent causes hindrances to the smooth interaction between the father and the child.”

In the light of the above observations made by the family court, we are of the opinion that the apprehension expressed by the respondent/mother is misplaced. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the same is dismissed.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- C.S.SUDHA JUDGE ami/

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 557/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF GOP 656/2020 DATED

13/03/2020 OF HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR PERMANENT CUSTODY Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF IA 1448/2020 FILED ON

13/03/2020 IN OP 656/2020 DATED OF HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR AN INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE MINOR Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS INTIMATED BY ADVOCATE KISHORE KUMAR M.

DATED 15/07/2023 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA

1448/2020 IN OP 656/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 27/7/2023 BEFORE LEARNED FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

8/08/2023 IN IA 1448/2020 IN OP 656/2020 OF THE LEARNED FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM