IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2022 IN OP(G&W) NO.253 OF 2020 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: RINDU, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.SASI, PANAMUKKIL HOUSE, EAZHUVATHIRUTHI, KARUKATHIRUTHI, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 679 577. DEEPA NARAYANAN K.SUJAI SATHIAN MARY LIYA SABU VISMAYA VINOD RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: LATHEESH, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.LAKSHMANAN, ATTAYIL HOUSE, KOLLAN PADI, VALAVU ROAD, KADAVANAD P.O., PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 586. LATHEESH(Party-In-Person) M.V.KISHORE KUMAR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27689 MAT.APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2022 2 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. The appellant, who is the mother of a now 10 year old daughter, challenges the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court, Tirur, in OP(G&W)No.253/2020; however, only to a very small extent. 2. Smt.Deepa Narayanan – learned counsel for the appellant, explained that, though her client is not against interim custody of the daughter being granted to the father during daytime, she is apprehensive about the overnight arrangement made by the learned Family Court because the child abhors it. She pointed out that, it is taking notice of this, that another learned Bench of this Court had, as early as on 25.08.2022, passed an order allowing the respondent - father to hold custody of the child on the first, third and fourth Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 3. Smt.Deepa Narayanan, however, alleged that, for more than six months now, the father has not even bothered to come and visit the child; but that both of them are forced to go to the learned Munsiff’s Court, Ponnani, as ordered by this Court, wait there and to then return every first, third and fourth 2025:KER:27689 MAT.APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2022 3 Saturdays. She thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed and the judgment of the learned Family Court - to the extent to which it has given overnight custody to the father - be vacated. 4. Sri.M.V.Kishore Kumar – appearing for the respondent, conceded that his client is not in India explaining that he is a person employed on a Ship and therefore, requiring to travel internationally for six months continuously. However, even to a pointed question from this Court, the learned counsel was unable to explain to us why he did not inform this factum to this Court, while the interim order dated 25.08.2022 had been issued. 5. Sri.M.V.Kishore Kumar, nevertheless, argued that the arrangement now made by the learned Family Court is without error because, the child is comfortable even under an overnight custody arrangement with his client; and thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 6. We have evaluated the rival submissions, particularly the contention of Smt.Deepa Narayanan that the child is not ready to go with the father for overnight stay. 7. As we have already indicated above, in spite of the order dated 25.08.2022, the father admittedly has not seen the 2025:KER:27689 MAT.APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2022 4 child for the last six months or more; and his learned counsel explains that he is sailing on a ship. 8. It is thus obvious that the bond between the father and the child has to be established before an overnight arrangement can be finally thought of. We find no reason to disbelieve the version of the mother that the child is presently unwilling to go to the father for night stay, but certainly, the situation can change once the bond between them is bettered through continuous day visitation arrangements. In fact, this was what was in the mind of this Court when the order dated 25.08.2022 was issued. For the sake of full reading, the said order is extracted under: “This Court, while entertaining the appeal, stayed the operation of the impugned judgment. However, by staying the impugned judgment, this Court allowed the father to have interaction with the child on every second Saturday from 10 am to 4 pm from the premises of the Family Court, Tirur. 2. Both the parties are residing at Ponnani. Both parties have no objection in handing over and return the child from the premises of the Munisif's Court, Ponnani. 3. The father also filed I.A No.2 of 2022 for custody during Onam holidays. 4. After considering the submission on both sides, we are of the view that following arrangements can be made till the disposal of the appeal. i. The father is allowed to have the custody of the child on 1st, 3rd and 4th Saturdays from 10 am to 4 pm. ii. The child shall be handed over and returned from the premises of the Munisif's Court, Ponnani. 2025:KER:27689 MAT.APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2022 5 iii. If the child is taken to the house of the father, the father should ensure that his parents are available in the house. iv. The father is also allowed to take the child outside for shopping, restaurants, parks etc while the child is in his custody. v. If the appellant is of the view that any of the acts of the respondent is not in the best interest of the child, she can report it into the Child Welfare Committee, Malappuram and the Child Welfare Committee shall inquire into that complaint and report before this Court. I.A No.2 of 2022 is disposed of as above.” 9. We are, therefore, of the firm view that, at least for a period of six months, the arrangement as ordered by this Court should continue; and should the child change his mind and agree to stay with the father, then the latter must be reserved liberty to seek the same through a proper proceeding. 10. Therefore, with the consent of both sides, we confirm the order dated 25.08.2022 extracted above, except with a modification that the place of exchange of the child shall be in front of the residential gate of the mother. We also order that direction No.5 in the afore extracted interim order will cease to be in operation in view of our disposal of this appeal finally, as we have presently ordered. Needless to say, the arrangement as above shall continue for a minimum period of six months - which is to say 2025:KER:27689 MAT.APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2022 6 that the father and the child must have a minimum of 18 day visitations - and should the child then be agreeable to go to the father for an overnight stay, the mother can either agree to the same and if she does not, we leave liberty to the father to move the learned Family Court appropriately for such purpose. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu