The court prioritizes the child's best interests, emphasizing a stable environment free from parental conflict.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioners challenge Ext.P7 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, solely because the daughter of the first among them has been directed to be given in interim custody of the 1^st respondent – her father, every second Saturday from 10 A.M. till 5 P.M. Sunday; as also during the first half of Onam, Christmas vacations and first 15 days each during April and May Summer vacations. Though there is a further direction in the impugned order, that the father can talk to the child every Sunday between

07.00 to 7.30 p.m, this is not opposed by the mother.

2. We considered this matter on 18.02.2026, when we issued the following order, after interacting with both sides and the child.

The 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent were present before us in the morning today, along with the child.

2. We asked the child to be handed over to the 1st respondent to see her reaction; and we found her to be very comfortable and friendly. The arrangement continued till about 3 P.M, when we heard this matter again.

3. Going by the allegations and contra-

allegations and since we find the child to be friendly with both the parents, we are of the view that they must be subjected to professional counselling, before we can take a final decision.

4. The learned Counsel on both sides agreed that their clients can obtain counselling under the aegis of the Family Counselling Centre of this Court.

5. Taking note of the request of the Counsel also, we referred the parties, along with the child, to the Family Counselling Centre of this Court. 6. Post on 19.02.2026 along with the report of the Family Counsellor.

On the next posting date, the parties need not be present before us.

3. We have received the report of counselling, which says that the child is comfortable with both parents; but that she is having ‘observable anxiety and emotional confusion because of the parental conflict’ (sic). The Psychologist attached to the Family Counselling Centre of this Court recommends that the child be given a ‘consistent, conflict free and stable environment’, for her emotional security and upbringing.

4. We have no doubt that what the child requires is a scenario where she does not get caught in the conflict between her parents. Going by the impugned order, the learned Family Court has allowed the child to be with the father on certain days; with the rest of the time being with the mother. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the learned Family Court has acted in the best interests of the child.

5. That said, the argument of Smt.Suja Padmanabhan Pillai – learned counsel for the petitioner-mother, is that the child cannot sleep at night without her client. We are afraid that this submission appears only to be a self-serving one since, the child did not exhibit any alienation from her father when she was before us; and this is further confirmed by the Psychologist in her report.

6. Dr.Sebastian Chamappilly – learned counsel for the respondent, in fact, countered the afore submission of Smt.Suja Padmanabhan Pillai, asserting that the child has no objection or hesitation to be with her father even during nights. As of now, for the reasons above, we obtain no reason not to accept this.

In such circumstances, we are of the firm view that our intervention at this stage is not necessary; and consequently, dismiss this Original Petition.

Sd/-