J U D G M E N T

Ajithkumar, J Respondents No. 2 and 3 in G.O.P.No.1681 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur have filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The 1st respondent filed the G.O.P. for getting permanent custody of his 5-year-old daughter, Athmiya. He filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 in that G.O.P. for getting interim custody of the child. The petitioners have filed G.O.P No.1579 of 2022 seeking a prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st respondent, his mother, brother, and wife of the brother from removing the child from their custody. They filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 in G.O.P.No.1579 of 2022 seeking a temporary injunction. In that G.O.P the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 claiming interim custody of the child. As per a common order dated 03.09.2022 interim custody of the child was given to the 1st respondent. Consequently, the petition for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners was dismissed. That common order is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. On 17.10.2022 when this matter came up for consideration, the 1st respondent entered appearance through his counsel. Notice was directed to be served on the 2nd respondent. Both parties were directed to be personally present along with the child before this court on 21.10.2022. Accordingly, both parties along with the child appeared at 10.15 a.m on 21.10.2022. We interacted with the child, its father and mother, and also the 1st petitioner. The child was allowed to be with the mother from 11.00 a.m. to 12.15 p.m. Again we have interacted with the child, his parents and also the 1st petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

4. The 1st respondent is the father. He filed G.O.P.No.1681 of 2022 seeking custody of the child. It was alleged that while he was abroad, the mother who is the second respondent along with the child was in her parental home. But she eloped with one Noushad after abandoning the child in the house of the petitioners. The petitioners are the uncle and aunt of the second respondent. They are issueless.

They filed G.O.P.No.1579 of 2022 claiming that since they have been bringing up the child treating it as their own daughter, they are entitled to be in custody of the child. The 1st respondent never was with the child and therefore he is not entitled to claim custody. Accordingly, they sought a prohibitory injunction against the 1st respondent and his relatives from gaining custody of the child.

5. The Family Court considered all three interlocutory applications together. The claim of the petitioners that they were entitled to continue in custody of the child was not accepted. The Family Court observed that allowing the child to continue in the custody of the petitioners would result in severing the bondage between the child and its parents. It is noticed by the Family Court that albeit the initial inhibition, the child desired to go along with the father. Taking all such matters into account, the Family Court placed the child in the custody of the father.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that ever since the birth of the child, the petitioners have been bringing her up for, the 2nd respondent mother was away in connection with her employment. When the petitioners were bringing up the child and the child accepted them as its parents, it is quite against the interest of the child to send her along with the father, especially when, due to long separation, he has almost become a stranger. It is also pointed out that the 2nd respondent does not want to send the child along with the father and in such circumstances, the order of the Family Court denying the petitioners the custody of the child is sought to be set aside.

7. During the interaction, the child, although aged only 5 years, took a definite stand that she does not want to go with her mother or the petitioners. Of course, when she was s