Savin Panattu Sudhakaran vs Greeshma Gangadharan
2021 Latest Caselaw 14247 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                     &
               THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
       THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        MAT.APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN GOP 1482/2018 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR,
                                 THRISSUR
APPELLANT:

              SAVIN PANATTU SUDHAKARAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O SUDHAKARAN,
              PANATTU HOUSE, ALATHUR, CHALAKUDY, PIN CODE-680 741.
              BY ADVS.
              AJITH VISWANATHAN
              SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH
              SHRI. SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL
              SMT.SANU S MALAKEEL
              SHRI.VINAY JOHN.A.J
              SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)


RESPONDENT:

              GREESHMA GANGADHARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O C.G.
              GANGADHARAN, CHETHIKKATTIL HOUSE, KANNAMKULANGARA DESOM,
              KOORKENCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN CODE-680 007.
              BY ADVS.
              SRI.C.D.DILEEP
              SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE


  THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MAT.APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2021
                                      2



                             JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

This appeal arises from an application filed

before the Family Court, Thrissur, by the appellant to

modify the compromise decree for custody in G.O.P No.

1482 of 2018.

2. As per the compromise decree, the permanent

custody of the minor child is with the respondent-

mother. Father is entitled for interim custody of the

child on every second and fourth Saturday between 10 am

to 5 pm. The venue of exchange of the child was fixed

at the residence of the respondent-mother. This

compromise decree was passed on 25.06.2020.

3. It is stated in the compromise decree itself

that the interim custody shall be handed over as and

when the restrictions imposed by the Government in

connection with Covid-19 is withdrawn.

4. Since, the custody of the child was not given, MAT.APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2021

the appellant approached the Family court with an

interlocutory application. Taking note of the

restrictions imposed by the Government in connection

with pandemic, the Family Court did not allow the

custody of the child to the father as per the

compromise decree. The appellant also appears to have sought custody for a continuous period of 12 days, that

was also declined. The Family Court, however,

permitted the appellant to interact with the child on

every Sunday between 6 pm to 7pm through video call.

Challenging this, this appeal was preferred.

5. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and the respondent.

6. Having adverted to the present circumstances,

we are of the view that there is no impediment for the

respondent in giving custody of the child to the father

as per the compromise decree. The Family Court ought

to have safeguarded the decree passed based on the

compromise in the impugned order. MAT.APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2021

7. In such circumstances, we are of the view that

custody of the child shall be given to the appellant-

father as per the compromise decree. The appeal is

allowed to the extent as above.

The parties are directed to comply with the compromise decree in regard to the custody until it is

varied in accordance with law. No costs.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE PR