MAT.APPEAL NO.800 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:28938 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE M.B.SNEHALATHA THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025/13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO.800 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.04.2024 IN OP NO.137 OF 2019 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SASI V, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O LATE VELAYUDHAN POOKODE VEEDU VADAKKETHARA KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678684 BY ADVS.ROOPKUMAR G. ARUL MURALIDHARAN SREEKUMAR K.V. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: NADIYA, AGED 30 YEARS D/O LATE GANGADHARAN NALLEPPILLY THEKKEDESOM PARAKKAL CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678553 BY ADVS.G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H.(K/1441/2002) K.S.SMITHA(K/106/2012) B.R.SINDU(K/632/2002.) V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR(K/000741/2017) V.ROHITH(K/000324/2024) AFNA V.P.(K/0128/2024) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MAT.APPEAL NO.800 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:28938 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment of the learned Family Court, Palakkad, in O.P.No.137/2019. 2. The above Original Petition was filed by the appellant herein seeking permanent custody of his now 11 year old daughter; but it has been ordered only granting him right of visitation and interim custody over her every second Saturday, from 1.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., in the premises of the Court. 3. The appellant challenges the judgment to the extent to which his request for permanent custody has been denied; with an alternative plea that, even if this Court is to find against him, the time of interaction between him and his daughter be enhanced and further that he be also given overnight custody over her on specified days. 4. Sri.Roopkumar.G, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the child is comfortable with the father and wants to be in his MAT.APPEAL NO.800 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:28938 company; and hence that the findings in the impugned judgment are illegal and unwarranted. He, thus, reiteratingly prayed that either this Court allow the Original Petition as prayed for, or that the alternative plea above be granted. 5. Sri.G.Hariharan, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the child is scared and terrorised of her father; and that she is not even willing to talk to him, much less go to him. He was, however, unable to inform us why the child is behaving so; and when this matter was considered by us on 20.3.2025, both sides offered that the parties will be present before us. 6. The parties were thus present today before this Court and we interacted with the child. 7. As rightly said by Sri.G.Hariharan, the child initially showed extreme reluctance to even recognise her father, much less talk to him. We persuaded her, making her understand that her father is second to God; and thus were able to allow them half an hour to talk to each MAT.APPEAL NO.800 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:28938 other, within the Court premises. 8. Thereafter, when we interacted with the child, we saw that the friction between her and her father had reduced a little bit, though she was still unwilling to go with him. 9. It is thus obvious that this Court cannot order permanent custody of the child in favour of the father as has been sought for by him; and that it would also be difficult at this time to make her stay with him under an overnight arrangement. 10. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the bond between the father and the daughter must be established and nurtured through continuous and persistent day visitations; and in such perspective, we put it to the learned counsel for the parties whether they would oppose the father being given interim custody of the child every alternative Saturday, from 10 a.m. to 2 or 3 p.m. 11. The mother, who was present in person, did not oppose the above suggestion, but was apprehensive that MAT.APPEAL NO.800 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:28938 the father would misbehave when her daughter is in his custody. She also informed us that there were certain earlier deleterious incidents in front of her residence, when the appellant had come there; and requested that he be restrained from doing so in future. 12. The afore submissions being recorded, we notice from the impugned order that the exchange of the child has been ordered within the premises of the Court. We have already delivered judgment in M.A.No.288/2025, dated 2.4.2025, recognising that the pressure brought on a child in being made to visit Courts is immeasurable and that it actually traumatizes them more than anything else. We are, therefore, firm in our mind that the place of exchange should be altered; and both sides now agree that it shall be in front of the residential gate of the mother. 13. In the above circumstances, with the consent of both sides, we allow this appeal and modify the judgment of the learned Family Court in the following manner: MAT.APPEAL NO.800 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:28938 1.The permanent custody of the child will continue with the mother. 2.The appellant/father, however, will be entitled to hold interim custody of the child every second and fourth Saturday from 10 a.m. till 3 p.m.; and the place of exchange for this shall be in front of the gate of the residence of the mother, as agreed by both sides. 3.We order that this arrangement will continue for a minimum period of six months; and depending upon the bond to be established between the father and daughter, and if there should be any change in circumstances warranting such, we leave liberty to the father to move the learned Family Court for necessary modification, including to seek overnight custody of the child. Needless to say, if the parties are to agree on any such modification, even without the intervention of Court, we leave them liberty to do so; and in fact, urge them to consider such, taking into account the factum of the daughter making it clear to us that she loathes being taken to the Court. sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA, JUDGE jes