Custodial arrangements must consider children's agency and preferences, prohibiting forced interactions with estranged parents.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant assails the judgment of the learned Family Court, Thalassery, whereby, his request for permanent custody of his children has been declined.

2. Sri.M.Jayakrishnan Vazhoor – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the learned Family Court has granted custody of the children to their mother – respondent herein, merely reserving visitation and interim custody rights to his client, without properly considering the materials on record.

3. Sri.Prasanth K.T. - learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that his client has no objection in the children spending time with their father for any period of time as they may desire; but that they exhibit total alienation from the latter on account of their experiences from him in the past. He added that the elder son is 17 ½ years and almost beyond the jurisdiction of this Court; while, the younger is 14.

4. Hearing the learned counsel for the parties as afore, we requested that the children be produced before us; but, on 06.02.2026, the elder one alone was present. We were told that the younger boy had some event at school, incapacitating him from appearing; and therefore, adjourned this matter to 11.02.2026, when both children were present before us. We had an interaction with the boys, as also the parties; and our observations are available in the order of the said day, extracted below:

Read order dated 06.02.2026.

The younger child of the petitioner was also present today along with his elder brother; and we made the children talk to their father in the premises of the Court for over 3 or 4 hours. However, the children showed no affection towards the petitioner and told us unequivocally that they do not want to talk, much less spend any time with him.

We notice that the elder son is over 18 and therefore, beyond our jurisdiction; while, the younger one is 14 years, but fully articulate and capable of making his choices.

When the children are unwilling to talk to their father, obviously, we will have to decide this matter on merits.

Post on 12.02.2026.

5. Going by the impugned judgment, the appellant has been allowed to interact with the children on the first Saturday of every month from 10 A.M. till 4 P.M.; and for this, they have been directed to be produced before the CMO of the learned Family Court. He has also been given permission to interact with the children through videocall every Sunday between 7 and 8 P.M.

6. No doubt, in ideal circumstances, children ought to be given the opportunity of interacting and holding company with their parents equally. If they were so desirous, this Court would have certainly intervened and made arrangements in such manner, that the petitioner would have had much more time than that has been reserved to him in the impugned judgment.

7. However, we find a problem in this case because, the children are so alienated and hostile to their father, that they will not even talk, much less spend time with him. In spite of our best efforts to make them do so, they refused and the elder son told us that they become so because of the ‘horrible experiences’ they had with him in the past. When we persuaded the children to be civil to their father, they responded in unison that the latter ought to have understood that he is a father and to have behaved so, which he has never done, thus they having no bonding or relationship with him. Going by the hostile attitude of the children, we are not even sure if they will ever agree to interact with him, as has been ordered.

8. That said, in Indu v. Thomas @ Manoj [2025(3) KHC

295], this Court has already held that Courts cannot direct children to be given in exchange, or to be forced to be with their parents, within the Court premises. In the case at hand, the Court has directed the i