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 mu