2025:KER:25389 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN OPGW NO.1083 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 SIVANKUTTY, AGED 69 YEARS AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, S.K.SADANAM, P.O.ELAPPIKULAM, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN- 690 503. 2 KAUSALYA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.SIVANKUTTY, S.K.SADANAM.P.O., ELAPPIKULAM, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN- 690 503. BY ADVS. P.G.SURESH ASWATHY KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SREEKUMAR AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN ACHARY, EDAYIL KUDUKKAYIL HOUSE, MALAMEL BHAGAM MURI, P.O.KARTHIKAPALLY, KEERIKAD VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690 516. BY ADVS. 2025:KER:25389 Mat.Appeal No.86 of 2022 2 V.N.SANKARJEE V.N.MADHUSUDANAN R.UDAYA JYOTHI M.M.VINOD M.SUSEELA KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K. C.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR NITHEESH.M ANIL KUMAR K.N. OTHER PRESENT: SMT KEERTHI B CHANDRAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25389 Mat.Appeal No.86 of 2022 3 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. In this appeal, the appellants challenge the final order of the learned Family Court, Mavelikara, in O.P.(G&W) No.1083 of 2016. 2. The above mentioned original petition was filed by the respondent seeking permanent custody of his son-who is now 12 years of age. The learned Family Court, however, declined the said prayer; but granted him interim custody only on the first and third Saturdays from 10 a.m. till 5 p.m, the next Sunday; and this is now challenged by the appellants, who are the grandparents of the child. 3. The facts involved indicate that the mother of the child unfortunately died and that some allegations are now being made by the appellants against the respondent. 4. Be that as it may, the learned Family Court 2025:KER:25389 Mat.Appeal No.86 of 2022 4 has only granted interim custody of the child to the respondent every Saturday from 10 a.m., till 5.00 p.m. the next Sunday. Even this is being impugned by the appellants saying that the child is unwilling to go to the father. 5. Today, the parties were before us, along with child and we had extensive interaction with them. 6. Initially, the child said that he does not like his father and is not ready to go with him. But, after some persuasion from us, he agreed to join his father for lunch in the court premises; and we then considered this matter in the afternoon session. We sensed that the friction between the father and son had thawed considerably; and we are fully aware that, through the interim order issued by this Court earlier on 8th November, 2022, the child is already spending time with his father every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. 2025:KER:25389 Mat.Appeal No.86 of 2022 5 7. However, in spite of this development, the child appeared to be unwilling to go to the father for overnight stay; and hence, we put it to the learned counsel for the parties as to their suggestions in such scenario. 8. Smt.Keerthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, asserted that the child may be unwilling to go with his father only because he has been tutored, but then conceded that the bond between them will have to now increase. She suggested that, therefore, the interim order of this Court dated 8th of November, 2022, be confirmed, however, allowing the father to be with his son from 10.00 a.m every Saturday, till 6.00 p.m that day. She also pleaded that, after this arrangement is continued for a few weeks, her client be allowed to seek overnight custody of the child, either before this Court, or before the learned Family Court. 2025:KER:25389 Mat.Appeal No.86 of 2022 6 9. The learned counsel for the appellant- Smt.Aswathy Krishnan, did not oppose the afore suggestion; but pleaded that this Court make apposite arrangement, in conformity with the desire and requirements of the child. 10. We have no doubt that every child needs to grow up with equal attention from the parents. This is an unfortunate case, where the child has already lost his mother and there appears to be some form of alienation from his father. In an abstract sense, we cannot allow this to happen because, for every child to grow up as a worthy citizen, he has to obtain the love, affection, guidance and support of both parents. 11. As already indicated above, our persuasion has already obtained some result, with the child now willing to spend time with his father. We must surely allow them to better this bond, which we believe can be done through continuous and repeated 2025:KER:25389 Mat.Appeal No.86 of 2022 7 interactions during the day time. For this, we feel that the submissions of Smt.Keerthi that the interim custody time be enhanced to 6 p.m. every Saturday requires to be acceded to, particularly because the parties are living very close to each other. It is our firm opinion that this will give the father opportunity of not only spending time with his son, but also for quality interaction. In the above circumstances, we allow this appeal and modify the impugned judgment of the learned Family Court in the following manner: (a) The permanent custody of the child will continue to be with the appellants. (b) The respondent/father will be at liberty to hold interim custody of the child every Saturday from 10.00 a.m., to 6.00 p.m. For this purpose, the place of exchange, as agreed by both sides, will be in front of the gate of the residence of the appellants. 2025:KER:25389 Mat.Appeal No.86 of 2022 8 (c) We order that the aforesaid arrangement continues for a minimum period of four months, subsequent to which, if the situation is to alter, we permit the respondent to move the learned Family Court appropriately seeking overnight custody. That so ordered, since we understand that the child abhors being dragged to Courts, we leave it also to the parties to enter into arrangements out of court, for his overnight stay with his father, adverting to the intent and wishes of the child. The above appeal is thus disposed of. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA,JUDGE Scl/ 2025:KER:25389 Mat.Appeal No.86 of 2022 9 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1: TE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THE COUNSELLOR DATED 10.01.2022. ANNEXURE A2: THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE SCHOOL DATED 20.01.2022. ANNEXURE A3: THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DOCTOR DATED 07.01.2022. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 07.01.2022 IN O.P.(G&W) NO.1083/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA. ANNEXURE R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 05.02.2022 IN O.P(G&W)NO.1083/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA.