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 Moham