The court reaffirms that custody arrangements must prioritize the child's best interests and allow for relationships with both parents.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner, who is the mother of a 7 year old girl, impugns Ext.P5 order of the learned Family Court, Trissur, which allowed the respondent-father to be in her interim day custody on alternative Saturdays and Sundays; along with overnight custody during the first five days of Onam and Christmas holidays, as also the first 20 days during the Summer Vacation.

2. Sri.Sameer M. Nair – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order, in fact, varies the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court because, it only allowed the respondent to be in interim custody of the child for certain days without any overnight custody having been granted. He argued that, in such circumstances, the learned Court ought not to have issued the impugned order, particularly because the child is unwilling and even scared to be with her father, much less spend time with him overnight.

3. Before we move forward, we must record that we had an interaction with the parties yesterday (21.01.2026), who had appeared along with the child. Our order of yesterday records our primary impressions in the matter, though we must say that we have not mentioned everything that transpired before us. For ease of reference, we extract the said order as under:

The parties appeared personally before us today along with the child.

2. In the forenoon session, we allowed the child to be with the father; and thereafter considered the matter in the afternoon session in our Chambers. 3. When we talked to the child, she showed affection for her father, but appeared to be labouring under an apprehension – which we believe is based on some things that she has been told – that this Court will force her to go with the father permanently. We assured that we would not do anything against her desire and she calmed down. We, thereupon, requested her to spend time with her father within the Court premises and she readily agreed.

4. We record that we have directed the parties that after the child spends an hour or so with her father, the mother can take her back.

List this matter for further consideration on

22.1.2026.

We make it clear that the parties and the child need not appear before us tomorrow.

4. In fact, the petitioner-mother told us yesterday – which we record with great appreciation – that she has no objection in the child spending any amount of time with the respondent-father and that she perceives this to be in her benefit. Her only concern was that the child is not comfortable with her father and requested that he be directed not to coerce her to do what she does not like, thus making her more uncomfortable in future. 5. On hearing the petitioner as afore, we allowed the child to be with her father for some time within the Court premises, which she did; but returned to her mother to go home.

6. When one examines Ext.P5, it is evident that the learned Family Court has made the arrangement therein only in the best interests of the child. It is unnecessary for us to restate that every child requires both parents; and a felicitous mix of their influences is the best catalyst for a child to grow to be a worthy person and citizen. This cannot be denuded in any manner merely because the parents are fighting each other, for no reason that can be attributed to the child.

7. Coming back to the case, we cannot find why the child is showing inertia to be with her father. As said above, the petitioner has taken a very proactive comportment before us; but we understand that she had given certain inputs to the child – may be inadvertently – in the past, which has fashioned her thoughts. However, since the petitioner now tells us as above, we are sure that she will also act in t