The child's welfare is the primary concern in custody disputes, with practical arrangements for visitation upheld by the court.

J U D G M E N T

C.S.Sudha, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the respondent/father in O.P.No.703/2021 on the file of the Family Court, Vatakara. The said petition was filed by the respondent herein, the maternal grandmother of the ward named Sahma Jaleel C.V., aged 2 years and 3 months. In the said proceedings, the respondent herein moved I.A.No.2/2023 seeking interim custody of the child during Saturdays and Sundays. The Family Court by Ext.P5 impugned order dated 26/07/2023 allowed the prayer. Aggrieved, the respondent/father is before us. The parties in the present proceedings will be referred to as described in I.A.No.2/2023 in O.P.No.703/2021 before the Family Court.

2. The case of the petitioner/maternal grandmother is that the marriage between Shamna, her daughter, and the respondent was solemnised on 06/04/2019 and on 19/04/2021 a girl child was born to them. On the 3rd day after delivery, Shamna tested Covid +ve. Hence, the child was handed over to the respondent's mother. The petitioner's daughter thereafter passed away. The respondent and his mother are even reluctant to show the child to the petitioner. Hence she moved O.P.No.703/2021 seeking permanent custody of the child in which proceedings, she moved I.A.No.2/2023 seeking temporary custody of the child.

3. The respondent/father objected to the petition contending that the distance between the residence of the parties is about 60 kms and therefore it would be quite strenuous for the child to travel this distance on all weekends.

4. The Family Court after hearing both sides, by Ext.P5 ordered thus - “In the result IA is allowed holding that the petitioner is entitled to the temporary custody of the child hereafter from 05.00 pm of Fridays till 11.00 am of the next Mondays. The petitioner can go to the residence of the respondent by car, bring the child to their residence in the evening of Friday and hand over the child back in the morning of coming Monday as stated above. The entire expenses shall be borne by the petitioner. This order will be in force until further orders. No cost.”

5. The main grievance raised by the respondent/father before us is regarding the practical difficulty in taking the child 60 kms away from his place of residence to the residence of the petitioner/grandmother. This argument was considered by the Family Court in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. It has been made clear that the entire expenses for taking the child from the residence of the respondent/father and bringing back the child to the house of the respondent would be borne by the petitioner/grandmother. It has also been made clear that the child would be taken in a car from the residence of the father to the residence of the grandmother. Therefore the interest, welfare and well-being of the child has been taken note of by the Family Court in the impugned order. Further, it is only during weekends the child has been directed to be handed over to the custody of the maternal grandmother. We find no infirmity in the impugned order calling for an interference by this Court.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.