A child's welfare is paramount in custody disputes, necessitating both parents' involvement and potential psychological intervention.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioners challenge the order of the learned Family Court, Aluva - producing it as Ext.P1 – alleging that the interim arrangement qua the custody of the 1^st petitioner’s minor son, will work against his welfare and contrary to his interests.

2. The thrust of the allegations of the petitioners is that the respondent - namely the wife of the 1st petitioner, has other relationships and is also suffering from psychiatric issues; and therefore, that the welfare of the child can never be ensured with her. They argue that, in such circumstances, the arrangement made by the learned Family Court in the impugned order, namely, that the child will be with her during the weekdays and with the 1^st petitioner during the weekends, is illegal and unlawful.

3. Sri.Rinesh E.V. - learned counsel for the petitioners, argued in line with his clients’ allegations, pointing out that he had produced Ext.B1 document to establish that she had an illicit relationship; and that Ext.A1 report from a Government Medical College limpidly proves that she is suffering from psychiatric issues. He argued that, in such circumstances, the reliefs sought for by his clients in this Original Petition is worthy.

4. In response, Smt.S.Sujini – learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the attempt of the petitioners is to taint her client by projecting her to be a person involved with other people and with psychiatric issues. She showed us that, however, the learned Family Court has held that Ext.B1 document - which is purported to be a letter - does not indicate who wrote it and to whom it was issued, thus leading to the only conclusion that it is one manufactured by the petitioner for the purpose of this case; while, Ext.A1 report from the Government Medical College renders it perspicuous that she is not suffering any ‘active psychiatric’ issues. She prayed that, therefore, the arrangement in the interim order be not interdicted, particularly because the child is happy with both parents, but shows preference to his mother as any child of his age would do.

5. We have evaluated Ext.P1 order on the touchstone of the various materials available and the submissions of the rival parties.

6. However, before we move forward, we must record that we had multiple interactions with the parties; with the first of them being on 13.02.2026, on which day, we passed an order to the following effect:

On the request of the learned Counsel for the parties this morning, we have referred their respective clients to the Family Counselling Centre of this Court.

2. The report we received - which we order to be kept in a sealed cover and its contents to be not disclosed to any person, without our specific orders – indicates that the parties have deep- seated differences between them, which can perhaps be resolved through effective Psychiatric Counselling for both of them.

3. The learned Counsel for the parties submitted that their respective clients are willing to go for the counselling; but requested that a competent Psychiatrist be chosen by this Court at Ernakulam.

4. The issue in this case is qua the custody of the child of the couple. His physical and psychological well being depends upon how the parents behave with each other and to him.

5. In such perspective, the requested psychological counselling for both the parents becomes very vital and we, therefore, accede to it; and the learned Counsel for the husband undertook that her client will defray all expenses for the same.

6. Consequently, we direct the parties to undergo psychological evaluation with Dr. Aswin Krishnan Ajith, 45/223, Karollil Road, Thammanam, Kochi, Phone Nos.0484-2345771 or 9447049394 and shall present themselves before his clinic at 11.00 A