Child custody considerations must prioritize the child's welfare and expressed wishes over parental marital status.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant, who is a mother of now 15 year old girl, challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Chavara, in OP(G&W)No.111/2017.

2. The respondent – father, filed the Original Petition before the learned Family Court, seeking permanent custody of his daughter.

3. The learned Family Court, though finding that the child was not comfortable with her father fully, ordered that she be given in permanent custody of him, holding, inter alia, that the remarriage of the mother would expose the child to a total stranger (meaning the stepfather). It further concluded that the welfare of the child will be better served by continuing with her father at her parental residence, where he, his parents and his brother, as also their children, are available; and then held that the child should be more comfortable with her ‘blood relations’ than with the stranger (again to mean her stepfather).

4. Before we proceed to consider the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, whom we heard in great detail in this case, we record that the parties were before us, along with the child, on 08.01.2026.

5. We had a detailed interaction with the child, who initially showed extreme alienation towards her father, which we found to be slightly unusual; and therefore, referred the parties, along with the child, to counselling.

6. The report of the counselling indicates that the child shows alienation towards the father primarily because she had not seen him any time except at the court premises; and a recommendation has been given that the child should be given some time to get used to her father.

7. It is in the afore scenario that we have heard this matter today.

8. Sri.S.Nikhil Sankar – learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that his client is well settled, with a good business in the tailoring field; and that his parents and other relatives would be the best to take care of the child, without any cause of concern. He contended that, when the child is now staying with her mother in the presence of a total stranger, her interests would be prejudiced, particularly because she is now a teenager of 15 years of age.

9. Sri.K.Rakesh - learned counsel for the appellant – mother, in response, submitted that what the impugned judgment did was to denude the right of the mother to be in permanent custody of her child merely because she had married again; and that this has the effect of intruding upon the right of a mother to make a choice about her life - especially when she is a divorced woman – virtually saying that such a woman cannot continue motherhood. He prayed that this Appeal be, therefore, allowed.

10. We find substantial force in the submissions of the appellant because, as said above, the child is still showing deep alienation towards her father. She is unwilling to talk to him, much less spend time with him; and obviously, to now allow her to be in the care of her father permanently, would be a rather impossible situation.

12. This is not to mean that the father and mother ought to be denied time with their child in equal measure and manner. However, the desire of the child is also paramount, particularly because she is a 15 years old girl and is literally a young woman, fully capable of understanding what she wants and the preferences she requires.

11. Interestingly, the learned Family Court also interacted with the child, to understand that she was not fully comfortable with her father. It, nevertheless, allowed the Original Petition in favour of the respondent – father merely saying that he has relatives and