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

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 4TH MAGHA, 1946 MAT.APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.05.2024 IN OP NO.91 OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

JEENA MARIA N FRANCIS, AGED 41 YEARS D/O N.V FRANCIS, NANGELIMALIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHY P.O, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 683541, REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI N.V.FRANCIS, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O VARKEY, NANGELIMALIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHY P.O, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 683 541.

BY ADVS.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA MANJULA NAIR REVATHY M.A.

GREESHMA T.G.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

NOBLE THOMAS, S/O K C STHANISLAVOSE, KALAMBADAN HOUSE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, VENGOOR VILLAGE, NEDUNGAPRA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 545 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran. J.

The appellant calls into question the correctness of the judgment of the learned Family Court, Muvattupuzha in O.P.No.91/2024.

2. The appellant is stated to be the mother of three minor girls and she filed the Original Petition seeking their permanent custody. She says that, she averred specifically before the Trial Court that she has migrated to the United Kingdom in June 2022; and that she is working there with a good income, thus being fully able and capable of providing the best to her children.

3. The petitioner says that, even though the learned Family Court also found as afore and appointed her as the guardian of her children, it reserved visitorial rights over them to the respondent - father every second Saturday; and that this has now incapacitated her from taking them along with her to the United Kingdom. She contends that, this has created an unfortunate situation, where the children are denied the company of both parents; and asserts that this was not what the learned Family Court intended because, it has found without any doubt that the children will be better taken care of by her in the United Kingdom. She thus prays that the judgment of the learned Family Court, to the extent impugned, be set aside; and she be allowed to take the children to the U.K.

4. We notice from the endorsements on file that service of summons to the respondent is complete. However, he has chosen not to be present before us personally, nor even to be represented through counsel; and this has been the situation every time this matter was last listed.

5. We have examined the impugned judgment, as also the documents produced in evidence - copies of which have been handed over across the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. It is indubitable from the judgment that the learned Family Court has found that the mother is better suited to be in the permanent custody of the children, and it has, in fact, issued such a declaration; with a concomitant direction to the father to hand them over to her within a period of one month. However, in spite of the fact that the appellant - mother had specifically stated before the learned Family Court that she has migrated permanently to UK as early as in June 2022; and that she is working there, with an income sufficient to take care of the children’s interests, the said Court does not appear to have specifically taken the same into account, while giving her their permanent custody.

7. This could be because, after averring that she had migrated to the U.K., the petitioner - mother did not specifically seek permission to take the children with her to U.K., when she made a request that she be made their permanent guardian.

8. We certainly find favour with the submissions of Smt.Revathy.M.A., the learned counsel for the petitioner – mother, that her client’s intent was clear; and that the same ought to have been granted for by the learned Family Court.

9. The documentary evidence on record are merely the marriage certificate of the parties; and