The court highlights a child's constitutional right to maintain relationships with both parents and the necessity for visitation arrangements to facilitate bonding.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA THURSDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1947 OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2026 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2026 IN IA 1/2026 IN GOP NO.1643 OF 2025 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

BETSY K T AGED 38 YEARS D/O K.A THOMAS XAVIER, KURISHINGAL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006 BY ADVS.

SHRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN SMT.BEA MARY BENNY SHRI.HEADSON P.J.

SHRI.JOSEPH C.J.

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT/PETITIONER:

SONY SCARIA S/O SCARIA VARGHESE, MANIYAMPPALY HOUSE, POOCHAKKAL.P. O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688526 OTHER PRESENT:

SRI SONY SCARIA-(PARTY- IN -PERSON)

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Devan Ramachandran, J The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, asserting that the learned Court has acted in error, in modifying its earlier order granting visitation to the respondent father for two hours on certain Saturdays; thus allowing him to retain the child every 1^st and 3^rd Sundays between

10 am to 5 pm.

2. Shri.M.A.Joseph Manavalan-learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client has complied with the earlier directions of the learned Court and had handed over the child to the father for two hours as ordered; but that, it is without considering this, that the learned Family Court has now modified the arrangement, to grant much higher time to the respondent, that too on the 1^st and 3^rd Sundays. He argued that the time granted to the respondent is unfairly long; and that, in any event, it ought not to have been done on Sundays but only on Saturdays, since the child is attending Catechism class on such days.

3. The respondent-Sri Sony Scaria, was present in person and complained that he has been denied enough time with his son, though no fault that can be attributed to him. He explained that, by the impugned order, the learned Family Court has only allowed him to be in the custody of his child from 10 a.m to 5 p.m on the 1^st and 3^rd Sundays; and added that he has no objection in the days being altered to be 1^st and 3^rd Saturdays. He added that he has to travel from Alappuzha to pick up the child from the learned Family Court, Ernakulam; and hence that the time now granted is the minimum that he would require for an effective interaction and to obtain bonding with him.

4. We offer complete approval to the afore submissions of the respondent because he is a father who certainly is entitled to be with his son. The child also has a constitutional right to be with both his parents, which cannot be denied without proper cause.

5. Interestingly, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent ought to be given not more that four hours time with the child; and explained that this is the “transition time” required to make him more friendly with him. We do not understand how the petitioner can make such submissions and on what basis she says that the child is alienated from his father .

5. That said, we find a problem with the order of the learned Family Court because, it has directed the place of exchange to the child to be its premises. In Indu v. Thomas @ Manoj [2025 (3) KHC 296] this Court has declared it unequivocally that, while ordering exchange of children, unless there are compelling reasons to be recorded in the order itself, Courts shall not choose its premises or places like police station etc. We notice that the impugned order is in violation of the declarations of this Court.

In the above circumstances, we allow this original petition to the limited extent of modifying the place