JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This Mat.Appeal has been preferred by the father of a minor child, namely, Abdul Nafiq, born in the wedlock with the first respondent. The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent has been separated by the pronouncement of Thalak on 12.12.2013. The child was born on 09.03.2013.

2. The appellant moved the Family Court, Ottapalam, for custody of the child. That has been declined by the impugned judgment. The father also has been denied visitorial rights. It is appropriate to refer paragraph-10 of the Family Court judgment, which reads thus:

“In cross examination, PW1 himself admit that, from rd the 93 day of birth of the child, the child is in the custody of first respondent and from that time onwards, the child is living in the house of first respondent along with other members of her family. PW1 further admitted that, he got married another lady and a child in that lady. Further admit that, first respondent does not marry after pronouncing Thalak. So the evidence of PW1 disclosed that, from the time of birth of the child, he is in the custody of first respondent. Admittedly, now the child is at the age of 6 years. Section 352 of The Mohammadan Law says that, the mother is entitled to get custody of her male child until he has completed the age of 7 years. So as per the above provision, the mother/first respondent is entitled to get custody of the child. Further, it is come out in evidence that, PW1 has got remarried and a child in that relationship. In that circumstance, if the custody of the child is given to PW1, the child cannot adjust with his step- mother (See the decision reported in 2010 KHC 4004 SC Athar Hussain V. Syed Siraj Ahammed and others). In the above circumstance, I find that, the custody of the child is more safe in the hands of mother than the father. But PW1 being the father has visitorial right to see the child at any time. Hence, I declined to allow this petition. I find this point against the petitioner. “

3. The Family Court observed that as per the Mohammadan Law, the mother is entitled to custody of her male child until the age of seven years.

4. The only plea of the father in this appeal is atleast to have a visitorial right to maintain father-child relationship with the child. He does not seek permanent custody of the child. According to him, after familiarisation, he may be given custody for a short duration.

5. Admittedly, the appellant is the father. The child has been with the mother ever since the birth. Merely because the father left the company of the mother after the birth of the child, it does not mean to say that he has no right to contact the child or seek custody of the child. The welfare of the child would assume to include maintaining the relationship with the father as well. The father can be denied contact or visitorial right or custody on an extreme circumstance where the court forms an opinion that such custody or visitorial right will be adversed to the interest of the child. Absolutely, no materials have been referred by the Family Court to form such an opinion in this case. However, we take note of the fact that the appellant is not in contact with the child for the last eight years and giving custody at this distance of time will not be in the best interest of the child. Let the father develop a relationship with the child by contact and visit. Therefore, we allow the father to contact the child on the first Saturday of every month between 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. from the premises of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad, which is convenient place for the both. He is also allowed to contact the child every Friday weekend between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. through video call. The appellant is also reserved with the liberty to move the Family Court in future to seek custody for a short duration if he develops intimacy with the child. The appellant is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.750/- towards the expenses to be incurred by