The court recognizes a child's preference in custody matters and emphasizes mediation between disputing parents.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner alleges that his seven year old son has been taken away against his wishes by the 8^th respondent – his mother, to Ajman, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

2. We do not propose to enter into the rival contentions at this stage because, we had an interaction with the parties, who had appeared along with the child on 23.01.2026. The impressions we gathered through such exercise, are available in the order we indited on the said date, which is as under: The parties are before us today and the child was produced before us by the 8^th respondent.

2. We had an interaction with the child and he came across as being very articulate, amiable, cherubic and smart. He had equal affection for the parents, but appeared confused on account of the strife between them.

3. We allow the parties to talk to each other along with the child; and after about two hours, we interacted with them again.

4. The parties agreed that until the next posting date, the child can be with the father and that they will appear again, so that they can either think of mediation or inform this Court about any settlement they can obtain in the meanwhile.

5. List this case, therefore, on

28.01.2026; until which time, we record that the child is with the father. We direct both parties to appear before us again with the child, so that we will be in a position to take further decisions.

3. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner - Smt.Karthika Maria, submitted that the child is happy with the father and does not want to go to the mother.

4. Sri.T.Naveen – learned counsel for the

8^th respondent, however, submitted that the child has been tutored; and that it is, therefore, that he is now showing such preference.

5. We do not know what really is going on between the parties, but have a feeling that the impact their strife has created is now dwelling large on the child’s psyche. We can only sympathize and empathize with the child, but can do nothing further because, we are only asked to exercise jurisdiction on a plea of Writ of Habeas Corpus.

6. The ‘alleged detenue’ is the child, and he seems to be comfortable with his father, as also with his mother. However, even before us, he made his preference known that he wants to be with his father. It is, therefore, for the respondent - mother to consider her options, including through legal recourse or otherwise; and we say so because, though we had given the parties an opportunity to settle their disputes in an amiable manner - as evident from the afore extracted order - nothing seems to have come out of it. As long as the parties stand on their own interest and ego alone, there is hardly anything that we can do to find a settlement between them.

7. As matters now stand, the child is with the father; and it is virtually conceded that he is not under any kind of detention.

In the afore circumstances, we allow this Writ Petition, and record that the child is now in company of his father; however, clarifying that the remedy of the 8^th respondent – mother through any recourse, including legal, is always left open.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

M.B.SNEHALATHA

akv JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1548 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

10.10.2024 IN O.P. NO.1502 OF 2024 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT PETITION FOR DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT FILED AS O.P. NO.1502 OF 2024 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED

24.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTER, C.N.N.B.L.P. SCHOOL, CHERPU EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY AJMAN FIRST INSTANCE FEDERAL COURT ALONG WITH TRANSLATED COPY EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.11.2025 EXHIBIT P5(A) TR