Custody arrangements must prioritize the child's well-being over parental conflicts.

Devan Ramachandran , J.

This is a classic case where the aphorism “much ado about nothing” would fit in its full force.

2. The parties are stated to be living together, with the petitioner sharing the household on the strength of an order she obtained under the Domestic Violence Act. The child is admittedly with them.

3. However, the parties are in war for custody of the child. By any way of looking at it, the rival claims, therefore, appear to be rather tenuous.

4. Sri.Manu Govind – appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Ext.P3 order of the learned Family Court, Thrissur, is unnecessary because, the respondent – father has full access to the child, with the parties are living in the same house.

5. However, Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval – appearing for the respondent, submitted that though, the parties are living under the same roof, with the child with them, his client has no access to the latter because the mother takes her away to her maternal home every Saturday and Sunday; while, on the weekdays, she instructs the child to go to her neighbour after she comes back from school, until the petitioner reaches back home. He asserted that, in such circumstances, his client practically has no access to the child.

6. We do not understand why the parties are fighting like this, especially when, admittedly, they are living in the same house, albeit under Court orders. When Sri.Manu Govind says that his client does not deny access to the child by the respondent, we see no reason to disbelieve it. However, the parties must understand that their war disturbs the child's psyche and would prejudice her irreparably. As parents, they must understand their responsibilities, which are distinct from being a couple, or husband and wife. We have said this earlier and want to reiterate in this case that, even if a couple - as husband and wife, can fight; as parents, they cannot.

7. As matters now stand, concededly, the parties are living in the same house with the child. The mother concededly has interim custody of the child, pending a custody case, as per orders of the learned Court; however, this does not mean that the father should be denied access to her.

8. In the afore circumstances, we deem it necessary that Ext.P3 is vacated; but making sure that the father has full access to the child without any impediment.

9. Since Sri.Manu Govind - on behalf of the petitioner, says that his client has no objection to the afore course and since Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval affirms that his client only requires access to his child, as any father would want, we are of the view that we would be justified in issuing orders as below:

(a) The petitioner shall not remove the child from home unnecessarily when the respondent is available, except for compelling reasons and/or for her curricular or extracurricular activities.

(b) Though the petitioner would be at liberty to go to any place of her choice with the child, including to her maternal home, this cannot be done every weekend because, at least for two of such, the father should be able to spend time with his daughter. We, therefore, order that the mother will be at liberty to take the child with her to her maternal home, or any other place of her choice, every first and third Saturday until the ensuing Sunday; while the father will be entitled to be in access of the child every other Saturday and Sunday, though without disturbing her curricular or extracurricular activities. It would also be open to the father to take her with him for any trip or such other visits, subject to the afore condition.

(c) As far as the working days of the child are concerned, we see no reason why the child should spend time in a neig