Kerala High Court
Dr.Preethi Sunny vs Don John Daniel on 25 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943
OP (FC).No.351 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1602/2019 OF FAMILY
COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONER:
DR.PREETHI SUNNY, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. K.I.
SUNNY, KUTTAMKULAM HOUSE, KURUNJAKAL LANE,
AYYANTHOLE P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT:
DON JOHN DANIEL, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. DANIEL M JOHN, RAJ MANDHIRAM,
MAVILAZHAKATH, ELAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, AYOOR P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 533.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No.351 OF 2020
..2..
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of March 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J
This matter relates to the interim custody of
the minor child. The petitioner is the mother and
the respondent is the father of the child, namely,
Nova Don Daniel. Now, the child appears to be four
years old. The mother is residing at Thrissur and
the father is residing at Kollam. The petition for
custody was filed before the Family Court, Thrissur
by the father. In that petition, an application for
interim custody was also filed. Initially Ext.P5
order was passed permitting the respondent herein to
interact with the child through the office of the
Court on every second and fourth Sunday at 10.30 am.
Thereafter, due to Covid-19 restrictions, Ext.P6
order was passed permitting the father to interact
with the child between 7 pm to 8 pm on every Sunday
through video call. It appears that the Family
Court, thereafter, cancelled the order as it was
OP (FC).No.351 OF 2020
..3..
reported by the Family Court that the petitioner-
mother did not allow the child to interact with the
father through video call. Thereafter, Ext.P7 order
was passed directing the mother to produce the child
before the office of the Family Court on every
second and fourth Sunday so as to permit the
respondent-father to have an interaction with the
child from 10.30 am to 1.30 pm. These orders are
under challenge in this original petition.
2. Admittedly, the child is only four years
old. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the matter may be remanded back to the Family
Court to consider and pass orders after adverting
all attendant circumstances. The learned counsel
for the respondent-father opposed it.
This matter arises from an interim order.
Taking note of the tender age of the child, the
Family Court only permitted the respondent-father to
interact with the child on every second and fourth
Sunday for a short duration. We find no reason to
OP (FC).No.351 OF 2020
..4..
interfere with such order of the Family Court.
Therefore, this original petition is only to be
dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
PR
OP (FC).No.351 OF 2020
..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OP(G AND W) NO.510
OF 19 AND RENUMBERED AS OP NO.1602 OF
19 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
ORIGINALLY INSTITUTED DATED 2.5.19.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED TO
EXT P1 DATED 27.08.2019 BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR DATED 14.5.19.
FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR DATED 16.05.19.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA
NO. 3705 OF 2019 IN OP NO.1602 OF 2019
DATED 4.1.2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA
NO.4 OF 2020 IN OP NO.1602 OF 2019
DATED 21.08.2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSE DIN IA
NO. 6 OF 2020 IN OP NO.1602 OF 2019
DATED 18.09.2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1 (a) TRUE PAPER PRINT OUT COPIES OF THE
SCREEN SHOT OF VIDEO CALL THROUGH
WATSAAPP.
