The court emphasizes the necessity for both parents in a child's life, balancing their custodial rights amidst marital disputes.

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 the father from 23.12.2025 till 27.12.2025. We find no reason to intervene because, the child, in our presence, was very friendly with both parents, as any child of his age would be. It is essential that the parents understand that the child requires both of them and that his time ought to be divided between them equally in ideal circumstances. However, it is because they are fighting, that the Courts are required to intervene and make provisions.

7. That said, since the order directs the child to be given in custody of his father on 23.12.2025, it has now become impossible to comply with it; and hence, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner if his client would agree that the child be given in custody of his father – the respondent, from this Court today (3 p.m.), till 6 p.m. on 29.12.2025, since this would align with the time frame fixed by the learned Family Court in Ext.P4.

8. With appreciation, we must record that both sides agreed to the afore suggestion. In the afore circumstances, with the consent of both sides, we allow this Original Petition to modify Ext.P4 to a limited extent, thus granting interim custody of the child to the respondent – father, from 3 p.m. today (which is the time when we considered this matter), till 6 p.m. on 29.12.2025.

Needless to say, at 6 p.m. on 29.12.2025, the child shall be given back to the petitioner at her residence at Chalakudy; and we record the undertaking of the learned counsel for the respondent that this would be done without fail.