Custody arrangements must prioritize the best interests of children, aligning with the parens patriae doctrine.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the learned Family Court, Malappuram, alleging that the arrangement made therein, qua the custody of his children, is illegal and unlawful.

2. Sri.K.Rakesh – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, when the children are unwilling even to interact with the mother, much less live with her, the order of the learned Family Court asking them to be with her on specified days every week, as also for the holidays and vacations, would cause them immeasurable stress and trauma. He contended that, when the learned Family Court itself found the children to be alienated from the mother – which, he asserted, was only because of her own doing, since she had virtually deserted them – it could not have issued an order like Ext.P3. He prayed that, therefore, this Original Petition be allowed.

3. In response, Smt.A.Lowsy – learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that this is not a case where the children are distant from their mother, but where they have been manipulated to be so on account of constant tutoring and influence from the father. She argued that, when the mother is staying very close by, being fully in a position to take care of her children and to attend to their schooling and such other requirements, the learned Court is without error in having granted her custody over the, with weekend custody to the father. She submitted that the arrangement made by the learned Court during the vacations and holidays is also apposite, since it divides the time of the children with their parents equally.

4. Before we record our opinion, we must say that we had a long interaction with the parties, when they were present before us along with the children on 21.11.2025. The opinion we gathered is indited in the order of that day, which is as under:

The parties were before us today, along with the children.

2. We first interacted with the children, who certainly had affection for both parents; but for some reason that we have not been able to discern fully, showed a preference to be with the father.

3. We, thereupon, allowed the respondent – mother to be with the children for over two hours in our Chambers, when we were tending to other work.

4. Thereafter, we found the children to be much more comfortable with the mother.

5. Obviously, we will have to verify how the children will be with the mother before we take a final decision. 6. Both sides and their learned Counsel agreed that the children can be with the mother from this Court today, until 25.11.2025, when all the parties, along with the children, offer to be present.

7. Resultantly, we allow the children to be with the mother, until they are produced before us at 10.15 A.M on

25.11.2025. List, therefore, on 25.11.2025.

5. Today, the parties were again before us with the children.

6. Smt.A.Lowsy – learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that she has filed a Memo disclosing her client’s address at Malappuram, where she is residing on her own.

7. Sri.K.Rakesh – learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that, when the respondent admits that she is living alone in the house, it may not be proper to send the children with her for larger period of time, than a day or two a week.

8. We are aghast by the afore submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because, merely because a woman is living alone in her house, it would not denude her right to take care of her children, particularly when there is nothing else attributed against her. Of course, there is an assertion that she is not in the best of terms with her family, but this by itself cannot persuade any Court, much less, us from granting her the rights which are entitled to her as per law