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

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946 OP (FC) NO. 333 OF 2024 OP(G&W) NO.2129 OF 2023, FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

SARATHLAL S, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. SASIDARAN NAIR, MALARIYIL HOUSE, VALLIKUNNAM, PUTHENCHANTHA (PO), MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690501.

BY ADVS.

K.B.ARUNKUMAR POOJA K.S.

PRATHAP.G.PADICKAL RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

DHANYA CHANDRAN, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. SARATHLAL.S, SREESAILAM(H), VALLIKUNNAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN – 690501.

SMT V.VIJITHA THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner assails Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Mavelikkara, through which, the interim custody of his two young children has been handed over to their mother –

the respondent herein.

2. The petitioner asserts that the mother is leading a wayward life; that her interactions with certain people are questionable; and hence that the children will not be safe with her. He thus prays that Ext.P4 be set aside; further asserting that the children were earlier with him and were happy to be in his custody, until the matrimonial disputes arose between him and his wife.

3. However, in response to the afore submissions of the petitioner, as made by his learned counsel – Sri.K.B.Arun Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent - Smt.V.Vijitha, argued that, admittedly, the children are 8½ and 3½ years in age; and that, as is evident from Ext.P4, the learned Family Court had interacted with the first among them, who had made it unequivocally clear that she wanted to be with her mother. She asserted that the learned Family Court is also right, in saying that the second child is too young to understand; but that his young age would render it indispensable that he too be with the mother. She concluded, contending that there is no prejudice to the petitioner—the father, because he has been given visitation rights over the children through the impugned order; and thus prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.

4. We must record upfront that we are in affirmation with a part of the afore arguments of Smt.V.Vijitha because, when the children are conceded to be of a mere 8½ and 3½ years in age respectively, their requirement to be with the mother, normally, is undisputable.

5. That said, as evident from Ext.P4, it was not an order issued without adverting to the children's wishes, because the learned Judge records that he had interacted with the first child, who made it luculent that she wanted to be with her mother.

6. As rightly held by the learned Judge, the second child was only about 3 years old at the time of the interaction, and it may not have been possible to discern his mind – he being too small; but obviously, he is very comfortable with the mother, which is manifest from the fact that both children have been with the mother since the date of that order, namely 01.12.2023.

7. Nearly eight months have now passed, and we see no reason why we should disturb the arrangement in Ext.P4, especially when the father has been given visitation rights every second Saturday between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.

8. Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as afore, Sri.K.B.Arunkumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the issues between the parties are not very serious; and that, perhaps, they can be resolved through mediation. He, therefore, prayed that, either this Court give them an opportunity to settle the disputes before the Ernakulam Mediation Centre (High Court of Kerala); or that they be allowed to approach the learned Family Court for such purpose.

9. We have no doubt that, if the parties are interested in any settlement, no Court would stand against them; and if they, or any one of them, is to approach the