Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33425
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
J. Nisha Banu, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
Jithin George – Appellant
Versus
Jaina George – Respondent
OP (FC) NO. 312 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Santhosh Peter, P.N. Anoop, Nadeem Nazar
For the Respondents: P. Vinodkumar, Parvathi Venugopal, Harishankar R.
The welfare of the minor children is the paramount consideration in custody matters, and interim visitation arrangements by the Family Court, aimed at ensuring the children's comfort and emotional security, will not be disturbed unless found to be irrational or legally flawed.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to an interim order regarding the custody of two minor children born of a marriage. The dispute arose when the Family Court granted limited daytime visitation rights to the father while denying his request for full overnight custody, citing the children's comfort level with the mother. The Court determined that the interim arrangement was fair and found no substantial grounds to warrant interference with the lower court's discretion. The central issue was whether the Family Court's denial of overnight custody and the limitation of visitation to daytime hours constituted an error of law or fact. The court reasoned that in matters of child custody, the primary consideration is the welfare and mental comfort of the minors, noting that the father must first build confidence and rapport with the children before overnight custody can be granted. The court adopted a balanced approach, affirming the visitation schedule while providing minor pragmatic modifications regarding the place of transfer of custody. The court dismissed the appeal and sustained the original order with the slight modification on the logistics of custody transfer.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background concerning the dispute over child custody. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court's assessment of the minor children's welfare in determining visitation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPE N (J )
This original petition is filed by the petitioner/father challenging Ext.P4 order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner herein is the father and the respondent is the mother of two minor children, aged 12 years and 7 years respectively, born out of the lawful wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent.
2. O.P. (Guardian) No. 2603 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner herein before the Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking appointment as guardian of the minor children and for permanent custody. During the pendency of the aforesaid original petition, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.3 of 2025 seeking interim custody of the minor children, including overnight custody. The Family Court, vide Ext.P4 order dated 17.04.2026, granted custody of the children to the petitioner herein between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on every first and third Sunday, and directed that the said interim arrangement shall continue for a period of three months. The Family Court also directed the petitioner to pay ₹1,000/- towards travelling expenses to the respondent herein. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, wherein the overnight custody of the children were not granted to the petitioner, he has approached this Court with the above original petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent.
4. Admittedly, the children are boys aged 12 years and 7 years respectively, and they are presently residing with the mother. On a perusal of Ext.P4 order, it is seen that the Family Court, Ernakulam, interacted with the children and found that they were very comfortable with their mother. The Family Court further found that overnight custody could be granted to the father only after the petitioner gains the confidence of the children. Accordingly, the Family Court granted interim custody of the children to the father from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on every first and third Sunday. The Family Court also observed that the said visitation arrangement shall continue for a period of three months.
5. We find that the order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, is just, fair and does not warrant any interference.
6. However, when this case came up for consideration on
15.05.2026, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought a slight modification of the impugned Ext.P4 order, so as to get the children handed over in terms of Ext.P4 order at the residence of the respondent, instead of children being brought and handed over before the Family Court, Ernakulam. Since no objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent, this Court permitted the custody of the children to be handed over in terms of Ext.P4 order, at the residence of the respondent and to be returned on the same day at 5.00 p.m., as directed in Ext.P4 again, at the residence of the respondent. Accordingly, the interim order passed on 15.05.2026 is made absolute, as regards the place of handing over the custody of the children are concerned.
But for the aforesaid modification, we do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P4 order. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of.
