Vishu V vs Dr.Indu G
2021 Latest Caselaw 6102 Ker

OP (FC).No.86 OF 2021

                              1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                              &

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

 FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

                    OP (FC).No.86 OF 2021

 AGAINST THE THE ORDER IN I.A. 2/2020 IN OP 1889/2020 OF
                  FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR


PETITIONER/S:

              VISHU V.
              AGED 40 YEARS
              S/O. VIDHYADHARAN, SREEPADMAM, VELLASSERIL
              HOUSE, WEST KALLADA P.O, KOLLAM 690 500

              BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR

RESPONDENT:

              DR.INDU G.
              AGED 37 YEARS
              D/O. N.L GOPIDHARAN, VILA NO. 26, BLUE JAY
              IRIS PARK, UDAYA NAGAR, ATHANI POST,
              THRISSUR 680 581

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.86 OF 2021

                             2

                         JUDGMENT

C.S.Dias,J.

The petitioner in this original petition is the

respondent in O.P. 1889/2020 (Ext.P1) filed by the

respondent herein before the Family Court,

Thrissur, seeking to appoint the respondent as the

guardian of the minor child of the couple named

'Iyash' born on 17.3.2016.

2. The respondent had along with the

original petition filed I.A 2/2020 (Ext.P2) seeking

interim custody of the child. The petitioner filed

Ext.P3 written objection refuting the allegations

in the affidavit in support of Ext.P2 application.

3. The Family Court, after considering the

pleadings and materials on record, by the

impugned Ext.P4 order allowed Ext.P2 application

by giving the interim custody of the child to the

respondent and contact rights to the petitioner OP (FC).No.86 OF 2021

permitting him to interact with the child through

video call on every Sunday at 7 p.m and to have

visitation rights of the child on every Second

Saturday between 10.00 a.m and 12 p.m. in the

Family Court premises.

4. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the

petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing

for the respondent.

6. In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan

and others [2020 SCC Online SC 50], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has, inter alia, held that visitation

rights and contact rights are important for the

development of children, when the parents are

living separately. It has been held that contact

rights should be given to the parent who is denied

custody of the child for five to ten minutes every

day, which would help in maintaining and OP (FC).No.86 OF 2021

improving the bond between the child and the

parent who has been denied custody.

7. The Family Court has, after considering

the fact that the child is only 4 ½ years old and

that the respondent is the mother of the child,

given interim custody of the child to the

respondent.

8. The present grievance of the petitioner

is that the contact and visitation rights granted by

the impugned order is not adequate for the

petitioner to bestow his love and affection on the

child and getting acquainted with the child.

9. After considering the pleadings in the

original petition, the materials on record and the

counter affidavit filed by the respondent, we are

of the definite opinion that there is no

jurisdictional error or illegality in Ext.P4 interim

order warranting interference in exercise of the

supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article OP (FC).No.86 OF 2021

227 of the Constitution of India. The Family Court

has provided both contact as well as visitation

rights of the child to the petitioner.

10. Nevertheless, taking into account the

ratio laid down in Yashita Sahu (supra), we are

of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to

interact with the child through WhatsApp/Video

Conferencing everyday between 7.00 p.m and

7.30 p.m for a period of 15 minutes and be given

visitation rights of the child on every Second

Saturday from 10.00 a.m till 2.00 p.m at the

Family Court premises till the disposal of Ext.P1.

In the result, we dispose this original

petition by permitting the petitioner to interact

with the child through WhatsApp/Video

Conferencing everyday between 7.00 p.m and

7.30 p.m for a period of 15 minutes and have

visitation rights of the child on every Second

Saturday from 10.00 a.m till 2.00 p.m at the OP (FC).No.86 OF 2021

Family Court premises. The respondent shall

facilitate the contact and visitation rights of the

petitioner as directed above.

Sd/-

MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE ma/19/2/2021

/True copy/ OP (FC).No.86 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO.

1889/2020 DATED 16-11-2020 FILED BY THE MOTHER OF MINOR CHILD BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF I.A NO. 2/2020 IN O.P 1889/2020 DATED 16-11-2020 FILED BY THE MOTHER OF MINOR CHILD BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 01-01-2021 FILED BY THE FATHER OF THE MINOR CHILD BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.

2/2020 IN O.P NO. 1889/2020 DATED 08-01-2021 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.