IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA MONDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946 OP (FC) NO. 285 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN GOP NO.270 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KUNNAMKULAM PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

MUSFIRA AGED 29 YEARS D/O. THOTTUMOOCHIKKAL ABOOBAKKAR, THAYYUR VILLAGE, THAYYUR P.O, THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT -, PIN -

680584 BY ADVS.

MAHESH V.MENON RAJITHA V.K RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

1 JILSHAD AGED 32 YEARS S/O. KARENGIL BASHEER THAYYUR VILLAGE, THAYYUR P.O, THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680584 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BASHEER, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KARENGIL ABOOBAKKAR THAYYUR VILLAGE, THAYYUR P.O, THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT -, PIN - 680584

2 BASHEER AGED 58 YEARS S/O. KARENGIL ABOOBAKKAR THAYYUR VILLAGE, THAYYUR P.O, THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT -, PIN - 680584

3 FATHIMA AGED 50 YEARS W/O. KARENGIL BASHEER THAYYUR VILLAGE, THAYYUR P.O, THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT -, PIN - 680584

4 MUHAMMAD JASIR AGED 26 YEARS S/O. KARENGIL BASHEER THAYYUR VILLAGE, THAYYUR P.O, THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680584 SRI. SAIJO HASSAN THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)

The petitioner impugns Ext.P4 on various grounds, but concedes today that the arrangement under it, with respect to the interim custody of the child, has virtually expired, by the march of time.

2. Sri.Mahesh V.Menon – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client was only concerned about the overnight custody given to the father, but not against the Video Conferencing facility directed. He added that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, this Original Petition can be closed; but reserving liberty to his client to approach this Court again, if so required in future.

3. Sri.Saijo Hassan – learned counsel for the respondents, also admitted that the arrangement in Ext.P4 is no longer relevant, except qua Video Conferencing; and that this is more so on account of the interim order granted by this court on 03.05.2024. He, however, sought liberty for his client to approach the learned Family Court again in future, for appropriate reliefs.

4. The interim order afore referred by Sri.Saiju Hassan, is the one issued on

03.05.2024, which is as under:

“Admit. Adv.Saijo Hassan appears for the respondents.

2. This original petition arises from an order passed by the Family Court, Kunnamkulam in I.A.No.3/23 in G.O.P No.270/2022 dated 18.4.2024 (Ext.P4). The petitioner before this Court is the mother of the minor child, Muhammed Yamin, aged five years. By the order impugned, interim custody of the child was given to the father-1st respondent herein from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 19.4.2024, 20.4.2024 and thereafter from 10 a.m. on 22.4.2024 till 5 p.m. on 02.05.2024; and thereafter, after 3.5.2024, the father was allowed to video call the child everyday for 10-15 minutes between 7 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. The said order is challenged by the mother on the ground that the child is aged only five years and he had shown resistance to go along with the father-1st respondent.

3. When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the parties are present along with the child.

4. We had interacted with the child, who showed resistance/non-willingness to go along with the father-1st respondent. In the circumstances, there will be an interim stay of operation of Ext.P4 order to the extent of granting overnight custody of the minor child to the father-1st respondent till the disposal of this original petition.

Post this original petition on

05.06.2024 as per roster.”

5. It is thus obvious that, going by Ext.P4, the arrangement relating to the interim custody of the child is no longer relevant; while the Video Conferencin