JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the learned Family Court, Irinjalakkuda; but concedes that the period of interim custody of the child, ordered in his favour, has now elapsed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.N.L.Bitto, submitted that his client has challenged Ext.P3 only because he apprehends that the same will stand against him, when he is to seek further interim custody of the child.

3. We cannot find favour with the afore submissions because, Ext.P3 merely says that the child will be given in custody to the petitioner on 28.12.2025 and 30.12.2025 only. This Original Petition has been filed on 19.02.2026, more than two months thereafter; and we cannot understand why.

4. However, adverting to the apprehension voiced, we clarify that nothing contained in Ext.P3 will fetter or trammel the learned Family Court from taking appropriate decisions in future.

5. As regards the second prayer, namely that this Court make an arrangement for the interim custody of the child, it is unnecessary to say that it can never be considered or granted by us. The petitioner will have to move the learned Family Court appositely.

This Original Petition i