The welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, ensuring equal access to both parents where feasible.

Devan Ramachandran , J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Kasaragod, through which, his child has been given in interim custody, pending OP No.873/2025, to the first respondent herein - who is her biological mother.

2. The facts we see in this case are rather strange but distressing.

3. The petitioner and the first respondent were married; but have matrimonial disputes between them and thus arose contest qua custody of the child.

4. We do not propose to enter into the details of the contentions and facts any further because, we are fully aware that the matter is pending before the learned Family Court; particularly since any observation of ours would have the effect of interfering with the processes there.

5. Suffice to say, the child was with the mother and it is alleged that she was not taking care of her. It also transpires that the father approached the Child Welfare Committee (CWC); and consequently, the child was taken into their protective custody.

6. It is further admitted that the child was thereupon, on his application, given in custody to the father; but that he put her in the charge of the third respondent - “Snehaniketan Founding Home”.

7. At this time, the mother moved the CWC for permission to take the child with her, asserting that she has a permanent residence, which belongs to her mother.

8. The learned Family Court took the statements of all the parties, including the mother of the first respondent; and issued the impugned order, allowing the child to be in her permanent custody, but ensuring that the father had enough access to her, giving him interim custody on every Saturday and Sunday.

9. The petitioner challenges this order on the ground that the child ought to have been given to him in permanent custody.

10. We are aware that this Court had, on 30.12.2025, directed the petitioner to take out notice to the respondents. However, the summons issued to the first respondent has been returned with the endorsement “addressee left, present address not known” (sic). We are, however, of the view that we will be justified in considering this matter even in her absence because, our directions will not cause any prejudice.

11. When we examine Ext.P4, it is evident – as is fully admitted - that even though the petitioner was given the custody of the child from the CWC, he put her in the care of the third respondent - “Snehaniketan”. We do not, therefore, understand how the petitioner now seeks that he should be given permanent custody, particularly when the learned Family Court has done nothing to the prejudice of the child, she having now been given in interim custody, pending the Original Petition before it, to her own biological mother.

12. We further notice from Ext.P4 that the learned Family Court has been gravely circumspect in issuing its direction therein, having taken the statement of the mother of the first respondent also, who said that she has a house of her own and that her daughter and granddaughter can stay with her.

13. Pertinently, as said earlier, the learned Court also took care of the interests of the father, ensuring that he obtains access to the child every weekend from Saturday to Sunday.

14. We are without doubt that the learned Family Court has taken into account all germane and relevant aspects, particularly the requirements of the child and its welfare. It is paramount that the child has equal access to both parents and this is also her fundamental right.

15. That apart, even though the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the child may not be safe with the mother, we fin