Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
SAM KURUVILA – Appellant
Versus
PRIYAMOL .P.J. – Respondent
Key Points: - The appellant challenged the Family Court's decision to deny permanent custody and grant only limited visitation rights (!) (!) . - The respondent's counsel stated that the children exhibit total alienation from the father due to past experiences (!) . - The court interacted with the children, who unequivocally stated they do not want to talk or spend time with their father (!) . - The children expressed that the father never behaved as a father, leading to no bonding or relationship (!) . - The court noted that children cannot be forced to maintain contact with a parent against their will (!) . - The court referenced a previous ruling stating that courts cannot direct children to be given in exchange or forced to be with parents within court premises (!) . - The court found that forcing children to interact at the court premises would worsen their alienation (!) . - Children old enough to understand their choices and make preferences should have those respected (!) . - The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent (!) . - Future visitation shall occur at the mother's residence (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for custody declined due to lack of relationship. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. observation of children's unwillingness to interact with father. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
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 produc
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
