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

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946 OP (FC) NO. 782 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2024 IN I.A.NO.2/2022 IN GOP NO.1197 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, KUNNAMKULAM PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

JASNA AGED 24 YEARS D/O. AMBALATHIL SHAKKEER, PADOOR DESOM, MULLASSERY P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680507 BY ADVS.

MAHESH V.MENON RAJITHA V.K RESPONDENT / PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

SALIM AGED 37 YEARS S/O. UNNIKKERAN FATHIMA, BEACH ROAD, THIRUVATHRA P.O, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -

680516 BY ADVS.

SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR T.A.PRAKASH(K/1204-K/2010)

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)

The petitioner assails Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Kunnamkulam, through which, the interim custody of her minor son, of six years in age, has been given to the respondent - father on Bakrid and Ramzan days; and on the first half of Onam, Christmas holidays, as also Summer vacations, whenever the latter is in Kerala.

2. The uncontested facts are that the respondent – father is stated to be working abroad and has been ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- as maintenance to the child. The mother alleges that even this has not been paid; but we notice the submissions of Sri.Sumodh Madhavan Nair -learned counsel for the respondent, that, as per our order on 03.02.2025, his client has now paid Rs.25,000/-, which is the arrears for one year.

3. When we examine Ext.P4, there is a clear problem presented, namely that the arrangement ordered therein is rather vague and amorphous. The learned Family Court has directed that whenever the respondent herein is in Kerala, the child shall be given in custody to him on Bakrid and Ramzan days; and on the first half of Onam, Christmas holidays and summer vacations. The order does not say how the mother is to be kept informed of the fathers’ travel; and in what manner the arrangement of interim custody is to proceed on such days.

4. We say as above so also for the reason that, Sri.Mahesh Menon – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently asserts that the child is comfortable with the father only during daytime and not overnight, but that this has not been considered by the learned Family Court, though it has recorded in the order that “the child is happy with the father” (sic).

5. We do not propose to answer the allegations of the parties at this stage because, we notice from the order that the learned Family Court has found that “there is no lack of emotional bonding between the two”(sic) - which is to mean between the father and the son. However, since, even today, the learned counsel for the respondent is unable to tell us when his client is likely to come to Kerala next, we are certain that the question of overnight custody will have to be reconsidered by the learned Family Court, whenever he makes a request for the same after he reaches Kerala, taking into account the child’s views in such regard appositely. Otherwise, as we have said above, it will create a state of avoidable confusion, where the father would come to Kerala abruptly and seek custody, which will then cause unnecessary disturbance, even for the child.

6. That said, since the child is stated to be happy with the father, with an emotional bonding between them, we have no doubt that he will require his companionship to the extent possible. This will also be kept in mind by the learned Family Court, whenever the respondent comes to Kerala and seeks overnight custody of the child.

7. In the meanwhile, since the petitioner – mother does not stand in the way of interim day custody being granted to the father, we approve the impugned order to the extent to which it refers to Bakrid and Ramzan days; clarifying – with the consent of the learned counsel for both