JUDGMENT

Anu Sivaraman, J.

1.This Original petition is filed by the 1st respondent in O.P.No.170 of 2023 on the files of the Family Court, Thalassery. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 10.02.2018. A daughter was born to the couple on 30.01.2019. But due to differences between the spouses, they are living separately from 2019 onwards. O.P.No.336 of 2020 was filed before the Family Court, Thalassery for return of gold ornaments and M.C.No.139 of 2020 was filed for maintenance. O.P.No.170 of 2023 was filed by the 1st respondent seeking guardianship and custody of the minor child. An I.A was filed therein for interim custody. The allegation was that the petitioner mother had gone abroad entrusting the child to the maternal aunt and on that ground interim custody was ordered and the respondent father was permitted to take custody of the minor child at 9 am on Saturday from the house of the 1st respondent and return the child at 5 pm on the following Sunday. The father was also permitted to interact with the child through video/WhatsApp call on every Tuesday and Thursday between 5pm and 7pm. Further the mother was also permitted to interact with the child through video/WhatsApp call between 6 pm and 8 pm on the days when the custody of the child is with the father. The said order is under challenge.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prayer for interim custody was allowed without considering the best interest of the child and that the child is undergoing mental trauma as a result of the order of interim custody. It is stated that the child was with the maternal grand parents and that the application moved without impleading the mother or the maternal grand parents is an abuse of process of court.

3.Having considered the contentions advanced and having gone through the averments in the petition as well as the materials placed on record, and the order of the Family Court granting interim custody to the father of the child cannot be said to be perverse. In the facts of the instant case, we are not inclined to hold that there is any patent illegality in the order of the Family Court requiring interference in this O.P(FC). It is an admitted fact that the mother is not habitually available in the country and that the child is in the custody of the maternal grand parents. Though the I.A was filed with only the maternal aunt in the party array, the family court has heard all the parties and and permitted them to file their pleadings. The child was produced before court and had been permitted to interact with the father. All the contentions of the parties are referred to in the order as well.

4.In the above factual circumstances, we are not inclined to hold that the interim custody given to the father can be said to be an illegal exercise of power by the Family Court. In case the petitioner has any contention with regard to any inconvenience or trauma caused to the child, it is for the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the Family Court by filing appropriate applications. This OP(FC) is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move necessary applications before the Family Court on cogent grounds, supported by relevant material, if found necessary.

Sd/-

Anu Sivaraman, Judge