Kerala High Court
Kannanthodi Shameer vs E. Shabana Thasni on 15 January, 2021
1
Mat.Appeal.No.228 OF 2016
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 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942
Mat.Appeal.No.228 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPGW 1022/2011 DATED 04-01-2016 OF
FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
APPELLANT/S:
KANNANTHODI SHAMEER
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.KHALID HAJI, KANNANTHODI HOUSE,
PATHAKKARA,PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.M.BINOY
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SMT.M.SHAJNA
SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 E. SHABANA THASNI, AGED 32 YEARS
D/O.EDAPPATTA ABDUL SALAM, EDAPPATTA HOUSE,
VANIYAMBALAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, NOW AT NEHRU COLLEGE OF
MANAGEMENT,THIRUMALAYAM PALAYAM, COIMBATORE, TAMIL
NADU.
2 JASMINE.K., AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.EDAPPATTA ABDUL SALAM, EDAPPATTA HOUSE,
VANIYAMBALAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND
R1 BY ADV. SRI.HUSSAIN KOYA VALIYAVEEDAKATH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.1.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Mat.Appeal.No.228 OF 2016
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & C.S.DIAS, JJ.
======================
Mat.Appeal No.228 of 2016
======================
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2021.
JUDGMENT
C.S.DIAS, J.
The appellant was the petitioner in OP (G&W)
1022/2011 of the Family Court, Malappuram. The
respondents in the appeal were the respondents in the
above original petition.
2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the above
original petition, whereby appellant's prayer for being
appointed as the legal guardian of his minor daughter -
Hana Shameer, born on 31.3.2003, was disallowed, the
appeal is filed.
3. The Family Court by the impugned order found
that the appellant had pronounced 'talaq' and dissolved
his marriage with the first respondent. He has got
remarried. Subsequently, the first respondent has also
got remarried. In the said circumstances, the Family
Mat.Appeal.No.228 OF 2016
Court has found that it would be conducive for the
welfare of the child that her custody remains with the
respondents. Accordingly, the Family Court declined the
prayer of the appellant for being appointed as legal
guardian of the child Hana Shameer and being granted
her permanent custody. However, the Family Court
reserved the right of the appellant to have interim
custody and visitation rights of the child.
4. Heard.
5. We have reappreciated the pleadings and
materials on record. It is an undisputed fact that the
Hana Shameer was born on 31.3.2003. She has crossed
17 years and is on the verge of attaining majority. Both
the parents, namely, the appellant and the first
respondent have remarried. Therefore, considering the
paramount welfare and best interest of the child, we find
that the entrustment of the permanent custody of the
child to the second respondent, the mother of the first
respondent, would be most conducive to secure the best
interest of the child. Although the Family Court had
Mat.Appeal.No.228 OF 2016
granted visitation rights of the child to the appellant, he
has not exercised the same.
6. At this distance of time, especially when the
child is on the verge of attaining majority, and without
ascertaining the wishes of the child, we do not find any
ground to interfere with the findings of the Family Court
in the impugned order.
In the result, we dismiss the appeal, by reserving
the right of the appellant to move the Family Court, if
he so desires, before Hana Shameer attains majority,
to exercise his visitation rights. The Family Court shall
dispose of such application only after ascertaining the
wishes of the child as contemplated under Sec.17(3) of
the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
SKS/15.1.2021 JUDGE
