The court will not overturn a prior ruling based on unsubstantiated claims when factual findings are corroborated.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

Sri. Adarsh C.B, the petitioner appearing in person, made three submissions in support of this application, which he has filed to seek the review of our judgment dated 27.06.2025.

2. For the first, the petitioner submitted that the concession made by his learned Counsel - Smt.Ummul Fida, as recorded in paragraph No.2 of the judgment - that the time duration in Ext.P15 is now over - is factually incorrect; and that, for the second, the observation of this Court, that his child did not want to spend time with him after interaction in Court, is wrong. He then made a rather startling submission that, in spite of our observations in paragraph No.6, he expects the Family Court to allow the exchange of the child only within its premises, even in violation of the binding precedent, namely Indu S. v.

Thomas @ Manoj [ 2025(3) KHC 295 ].

3. We fail to understand why the petitioner has taken the effort of filing this petition because, what has been recorded as a concession by his Counsel in paragraph No.2 thereof is based on Ext.P15, which allowed the arrangement therein only until 28.05.2025. Obviously, as we have recorded, the time frame in Ext.P15 - whether it is conceded or otherwise - has elapsed.

4. Coming to the second submission of the petitioner, what we have recorded in paragraph 4 is what the child told us; and there cannot be any factual error imputed against that, particularly when the learned Counsel for the respondent herein also affirms that the child said exactly what has been recorded. We must state here that, since the issues impelled in the case involve the child, we had considered it and the judgment delivered, in our Chambers, in the presence of all the parties - who were personally present, and their respective Counsel. Hence, for the petitioner to now come up and say that what has been recorded is incorrect is rather unfortunate; but we choose to say nothing further, lest it prejudice him. However, we clarify that what we have recorded was not intended to fetter any remedy of the petitioner, or the power of the Family Court in future.

5. Finally, coming to the third submission of the petitioner - that the learned Family Court will defy our observations in paragraph 6, as also the binding precedent in Indu S. (supra) - we can only find this to be something said in an untenable reasoning, particularly when he admits that he has not moved the learned Family Court for any further interim arrangement qua his custody, until now. How be still maintains that the learned Family Court will not act as per Indu. S. (supra), is wholly devoid of reason; but as we have said above, we prefer to be circumspect, since the party is appearing in person.

This Review Petition is, consequently, dismissed.