The court prioritizes children's welfare and wishes in custody disputes, and emphasizes reconciliation over prolonged litigation.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order of the learned Family Court, Attingal, since it has directed him not to remove his children aged 15 years and 5 years respectively out of Kerala more than one month, without its prior permission. It has also issued certain other directions, including the appointment of a lawyer from the CLAP (Child Legal Assistance Program) for the children, further permitting the respondent-mother to see them in its premises between 10.00 a.m., and 01.00 p.m. every Second Saturdays.

2. Sri.Babu Cherukara-learned counsel for the petitioner-argued that, Ext.P2 is illegal and unlawful because the children refuse to be with the mother and do not agree to stay with her. He argued that the learned Family Court was in error in having struck off his client's defence in the interim application, from which Ext.P2 order was issued, holding that he had refused to produce them before it, in spite of specific orders. He contended that Ext.P2, therefore, is an unfair order; thus liable to be struck down by this Court.

3. In response, Smt.Asmin Nayara-the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-submitted that, Ext.P2 is no longer relevant because, the Original Petition has been transferred to the learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, under orders of this Court in Transfer Petition No.409 of 2025. He then asserted that what has been recorded in Ext.P2 is factually accurate and that the petitioner herein obdurately refused to produce the children before the court; in spite of repeated orders to do so; and his learned counsel even challenged it, saying that his client will not obey any such.

4. Interestingly, Smt.Asmin Nayara, submitted that, in spite of the above said conduct of the petitioner, the learned Court did not grant custody of the children to his client, but has made an arrangement which is unfair, because it keeps the children away from their mother-with the elder being in a hostel and the other being with the paternal grandparents, with the petitioner/father being admittedly abroad. He concluded, requesting that the arrangement in Ext.P2 be modified, allowing the children to be with his client, so that they can be together and study in an appropriate School.

5. Before we move forward, we must record that, the parties along with the children, were present before us.

6. What the girls told us was totally different from what has been presented by the petitioner. Even when he asserts himself to be a caring father, interested in the welfare of his children, the elder girl-who is 15 years in age, told us rather plaintively that, her father does not talk to her, or listen to her or even treat her as an individual. The younger girl wanted to be with her sister; and we could see the intense pain in her, in being separated from her sibling.

7. We recorded all that happened before us, along with our observations, in the order of the aforedate which is as under:

“The parties were before us today along with the children.

2. Both children are girls and the elder among them, Padma – who is a Xth Standard student studying in a school at Kochi – is an extremely articulate and intellectually competent girl, who is very clear in what she wants. She told us that she is now staying in her school hostel at Kochi and that she does not know why she has been made to do so by her father. She suggested that this may be possibly to alienate her from her mother – the respondent herein; but added that she wants to return with the latter to Thiruvanant