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 tha