Kerala High Court
Nair Kavitha Radhakrishnan vs Binu.V.S on 27 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1943
MAT.APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPGW 678/2011 OF FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT:
NAIR KAVITHA RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS,D/O
PADMAKUMARI, RESIDING AT SREELEKSHMI,
CHEMPAZHANTHY LANE, GANDHIPURAM, ULIYAHTHURA
VILLAGE, SREEKARIYAM PO, THIRUVANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE
RESPONDENT:
BINU V.S, KARTHIKA, 649,PRASANTH NAGAR, ULLOOR,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695 011
BY ADVS.
SRI.BASANT BALAJI
SRI.BASANT BALAJI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.07.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.96/2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1943
MAT.APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OPGW 707/2011 OF FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT:
NAIR KAVITHA RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS,
D/O.PADMAKUMARI, RESIDING AT SREELEKSHMI, CHEMPAZHANTHY
LANE, GANDHIPURAM, ULIYAZHTHURA VILLAGE, SREEKARIYAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE
RESPONDENT:
BINU.V.S, KARTHIKA,649, PRASANTH NAGAR, ULLOOR, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BASANT BALAJI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2021, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.97/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-:1:-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ.
=========================
M.A.Nos. 96/2016 & 97/2016
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2021
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
These appeals are filed by the mother aggrieved by a
common judgment in a matter relating to permanent
custody of the child. The respondent in both these
cases is the father.
2. O.P.(G&W).No.678/2011 was filed by the father for
appointing him as the guardian and for the permanent
custody of the child. O.P.(G&W).No.707/2011 was filed
by the mother for appointing her as the guardian of the
child. By a common judgment, the family court allowed
O.P.(G&W).No.678/2011 to the extent of permitting
interim custody of the ward to the father from 5.30 pm
M.A.Nos. 96/2016 & 97/2016
on every Friday till 5.30 pm on next Sunday. O.P.
(G&W).No.707/2011 was also allowed granting permanent
custody to the mother subject to the interim custody as
granted in O.P.(G&W).No.678/2011. Father has not
challenged the said judgment.
3. On 9/4/2021, we passed the following order:
After hearing the learned counsel for both sides and after
interaction with the parties, we are of the view that the
respondent-father shall be given custody of the child from 4 p.m.
on every Saturday till 4 p.m. on the ensuing sunday. The child
shall be handed over at the premises of Chempazhathi, Gurukulam.
This arrangement will continue for a period of six months. The
respondent-father has also undertook before this Court that he
will deposit Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) in the name
of his son by opening an account from this month onwards.
This order is in force now. We are not adverting to
the factual details of the case in as much as that
there is no challenge on the side of the father. The
learned counsel for the father submitted before this
Court that the father is satisfied if interim custody
of the child is given twice in a month. However, the
counsel for the mother opposed this prayer stating that
such custody will affect the education of the ward.
M.A.Nos. 96/2016 & 97/2016
4. There was a settlement before this Court in regard
to custody. As per the settlement, the father is
entitled for interim custody on every Friday from 5 pm
to the succeeding Sunday. The child is only 11 years
now. We cannot hold that on account of handing over of
the child to the father twice in a month will adversely
affect his education.
5. The joint parental custody is the modern-day
approach in child welfare unless the Court finds that
custody to one of the spouses would be against the
interest of the child. Except on the ground of
education, nothing has been pointed out to disallow the
claim of the father. The father before this Court
conceded that he will be happy if the custody is given
twice in a month. In such circumstances, acceding to
the request of the father, we are modifying the interim
order, allowing the father to have custody of the child
from 5 p.m on the second and fourth Fridays in a month
to 5 p.m. on the following Sunday. The handing over
shall be from the premises as ordered in the impugned
judgment. The father has undertaken before this Court
that he will deposit Rs.3000/- in the name of his son
every month as recorded in the order dated 9/4/2021.
M.A.Nos. 96/2016 & 97/2016
The appeals are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
ms
