The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining both parental relationships for the child’s overall development.

Devan Ramachandran , J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, because it has allowed interim custody of her child of 7 years in favour of the respondent;

however, conceding that the latter is his father.

2. Sri.Priyesh Kumar M.P. - appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the child is unwilling to go to the father, much less spend time or stay overnight with him; and hence that his client has been constrained to approach this Court.

3. Hearing the parties as afore, we listed this matter on

27.01.2026, on being told that the parties will appear before us along with the child.

4. The parties were thus present yesterday and we talked to the child. The opinion gathered through such is available in the order of the said day, extracted under:

“The parties were present before us today along with the child.

We interacted with the child, who told us the things which are rather fabulous and obviously the information which we had received from other sources.

We, therefore, allowed the child to be with the father for a considerable period of time within the Court premises and we considered this matter in the afternoon session again. The child seemed to be much more comfortable with his father and told us that he has no dislike for him. He also said that he does not mind spending much time with his father.”

5. It is thus obvious that the child has been given certain inputs that are inappropriate for his age; but we stop short of making any recrimination, though feeling it necessary to counsel the parties that this may not be to his best interests or upbringing.

6. As matters now stand, the child has told us unreservedly that he has no problem with his father and that he can spend time with him.

7. When the child has spoken so, we do not deem it necessary to intervene at all because, Ext.P2 merely distributes the time of the parents for the child, which certainly is to his benefit since he surely require both of them to become a worthy citizen in future.

In the afore circumstances, we dismiss this Original Petition, however, clarifying that every other liberty, available in law, to the parties are left open.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO. 50 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM, IN IA 1/2025 IN OP NO. 2182/2025 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1/2025 IN OP