Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ
DR. VIDHYA LAKSHMI.T.M – Appellant
Versus
ANIL RAJ – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner expresses safety concerns regarding child's custody with the father. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. importance of counseling and mutual cooperation emphasized for parental relationship. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. custody arrangement modified to facilitate balanced time between parents with stipulated return. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner assails Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Irinjalakuda, asserting that her child will not be safe or comfortable in the overnight company of his father -
respondent herein.
2. The parties were present, along with the child, before us today; and we interacted with them.
3. The petitioner told us unequivocally that she wants to resume her marital relationship with the respondent, though the latter was unwilling.
4. We, therefore, referred the parties to counselling, under the aegis of the Family Counselling Centre of this Court; and we have obtained a report.
5. We did not propose to deal with the report in detail, but suffice to say that the parties will have to sort out their matrimonial issues between themselves.
6. As far as the impugned order is concerned, it only allows the child to be in the custody of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
