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. 911 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.05.2024 IN OP NO.928 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN OP: DILIP KUMAR.N.P., AGED 44 YEARS S/O SUBRAMANIAN.N.P., RESIDING AT DILIP NIVAS,7/1E, T.BALAN NAGAR, KAVUNDAMPALAYAM, COIMBATORE - 601030 BY ADV R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN OP: GREESHMA, AGED 31 YEARS D/O RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT K.G.HOUSE, THANA, KANNUR, PIN - 670001 SMT K SEENA THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28622 MAT.APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2024 2 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran , J. Even though there are various assertions, allegations and averments made and urged in this appeal, when this matter was considered today, Sri.R.Parthasarathy – learned counsel for the appellant, conceded that this Court has already evaluated the issue regarding the interim custody of the child in question, in Mat.Appeal No.860/2024, earlier filed by the respondent – mother. He, nevertheless, argued that his client is entitled to permanent custody of the child; and therefore, that the findings in the abovesaid judgment would not trammel him. 2. Sri.R.Parthasarathy argued that it is the welfare of the child, which is paramount; and hence that the learned Family Court ought to have verified whether his client would be in better hands with the father, than with the mother. He pointed out that there is no disqualification found by the learned Family Court against his client, but has merely said that since the respondent is the mother, she would be better suited to take care of him. He argued that this has been so held without adverting to the factum of the mother not earning 2025:KER:28622 MAT.APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2024 3 and being dependent on her own parents; and thus prayed this appeal be dismissed. 3. Sri.R.Parthasarathy, as an alternative submission, then requested that, if this Court is not inclined to accept his client's plea for permanent custody at this time, the same may be left open for him to pursue in future, depending upon changed circumstances. 4. Smt.K.Seena - appearing for the respondent – mother, however, submitted that, as is evident from the impugned judgment, the learned Family Court has balanced the interests of the parents qua the child, finding that her client is better suited to be in her custody permanently. She pointed out that, in paragraph 35 of the judgment, the learned Family Court has recorded that the child has been with her client ever since the couple separated and that she is taking care of all her requirements, including education, meeting both their day to day requirements. She contended that her client is equipped to do this even financially and that even the interaction the learned Family Court had with the child establishes without doubt that she was taken care of well and happy in the company of her mother. She thus prayed that this appeal be 2025:KER:28622 MAT.APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2024 4 dismissed. 5. We have examined the judgment very carefully because, we are aware that the rival positions of the parties are qua the welfare of the child concerned. 6. No doubt, the learned Family Court has not found disqualification against the father, but it has found that the mother is better suited to be in her custody, at least as of now, because she has been with her ever since the couple separated. There is not even a whispering allegation in the pleadings, that the mother is not taking care of the child, or that the latter is undernourished or without proper care. But, the case of the father is that he has better income and is therefore, pecuniarily in an enhanced position to take care of the welfare of the child. 7. We must say that money is not everything in life and that what is more requisite for a child is affection and the emotional support it obtains from parents. As an abstract principle, every child is entitled to equal attention from the parents; but unfortunately, in a case like this, they have chosen to fight with each other. It is thus enjoined on us, as per the statutory scheme, to ensure that she is taken care of in the best possible manner. 2025:KER:28622 MAT.APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2024 5 8. It is often said that mothers have been created because God cannot be everywhere; and this is edificed on the norm that the mother would be the best guardian in normal circumstances, unless the contrary is established. 9. As far as this case is concerned, we do not find any material on record to even whisperingly indicate that the mother is not taking care of the child, or that she is not equipped to do so. The allegation that she is not earning, would, in our view, be not relevant because, the husband himself admits that she is getting support from her parents, even assuming that his assertions are true. 10. That apart, we do not see how the husband can maintain that he will not take care of his family, particularly his daughter, through a proper maintenance arrangement. However, this is an issue that is left to the parties to invoke in appropriate proceedings. 11. As far as the present scenario is concerned, we do not intend to disturb the custody of the child, particularly since we have already ensured sufficient visitorial and interim custody rights in favour of the appellant in the judgment in Mat.Appeal No.860/2024. 2025:KER:28622 MAT.APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2024 6 12. Needless to say, if the circumstances are to alter in future, it will be open to the petitioner to invoke remedies as may be available because, it is well settled, through a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that even permanent custody arrangements are essentially interlocutory in its tenor. In the afore circumstances, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu