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

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946 OP (FC) NO. 106 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPGW NO.1617 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

ABHILASH AGED 36 YEARS S/O. SAHADEVAN PILLAI RESIDING AT THUSHARA, PERINGALA P.O, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690559 BY ADVS.

A.MOHAMMED SAVAD V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA T.R.VISHNU R.SHABANA ANJANA C.R.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

ANJALI.R.NAIR AGED 33 YEARS D/O. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ANJALI BHAVAN, MAHADEVESWARAM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, CHIRANKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695601 SMT. ANJALI.R.NAIR (PARTY IN PERSON)

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)

The petitioner challenges Ext.P13 order on various grounds, but, primarily, that the interest of the minor children had not been properly reckoned, or adverted to, by the learned Family Court, Attingal, while issuing it.

2. When we heard the parties on the controversy as afore, we decided better to interact with the children also; and for such purpose, the respondent, along with them, were present before us on 10.07.2024.

3. What we found from the children is that they are unwilling to go to the petitioner, for which, they did not offer any specific explanation, but merely saying that they were scared of him. The respondent, who also appeared in person and informed us that the afore scare was because, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner and his counsel had attempted to take them away forcibly from the premises of the learned Family Court and that this is led a scar in the mind of the younger child, who had been taken in such fashion on that day.

4. It is needless to say that this Court is not concerned about the disputes between husband and wife; but is certainly anxious about the well being of the children, who are both very young and of impressionable minds.

5. We, therefore, passed an order on

10.07.2024, to the following effect:

“The respondent has appeared in person along with the children Aaryan and Ayaan. She submitted that if the children are ready, she has no objection to them spending a day with the petitioner. She offered that she will take the children to the Family Court, Attingal, at 11 am on 13.7.2024; and that they can be allowed to interact with the petitioner till lunch time. 2. We propose to accede to the afore suggestion as an interim measure, particularly because, we find that the children are, at least now, not willing to go with their father in spite of our persuasion. 3. We therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 15.7.2024. 4. In the meanwhile, as suggested by the respondent, she will take the children to the Family Court, Attingal, on 13.7.2024 at 11 am.; and they will be entitled to be in each others company till 1 pm. on that day. The Registry of this Court will instruct the Family Court to provide necessary arrangements for this.”

6. It is conceded by Sri.A.Mohammed Savad –

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anjali R.Nair – respondent appearing in person, that the afore interim order had been complied with; but that the children did not have any meaningful interaction with the petitioner.

7. Sri.A.Mohammed Savad – learned counsel for the petitioner, then submitted that his client will give up the challenge to Ext.P13 as of now; however, praying that he be allowed liberty to approach the learned Family Court for its modification, as and when the circumstances get different.

8. We have no doubt that the afore would be the best for the children also in the given circumstances because, they cannot be forced to go to the petitioner, particularly when we saw the kind of reluctantness they exhibited when we tried to do so in our chambers, as mentioned above.

In the af