Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
NANOOSH.E.U – Appellant
Versus
HASEENA RANI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges family court order regarding child custody. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. visitation rights resolved through mutual agreement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court modifies interim custody orders and commends legal counsel. (Para 6 , 7) |
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, because it has directed him to hand over custody of the child to the respondent -mother, forthwith.
2. We are not required to enter into the merits of the impugned order because, it is admitted that the former has complied with it. We certainly appreciate the petitioner and his learned counsel for doing so; and it augers well for the child.
3. The sole remaining issue between the parties is as to the visitation/interim custody rights the father should enjoy over the child.
4. We are pleased that both sides are in agreement on this also.
5. The mother concedes that the child can be with the father from 10 a.m. every 1st and 3rd Saturdays, till 5 p.m. the ensuing Sundays. This is accepted by Smt.M.Shajna - learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
6. In the afore circumstances, we allow this Original Petition in part; and modify Ext.P10 or
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
