Kerala High Court
Shahanas A.Pareed vs Simi Ummer on 5 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
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Mat.Appeal.No.42 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 405/2017 DATED 29-11-2018 OF
FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:
SHAHANAS A.PAREED,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O PAREED, ARIMBOORAN HOUSE, CHALAKKAL,
MARAMPALLY P.O., ALUVA-683107.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL
SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
SIMI UMMER,
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O UMMER, PULIKUNNATH HOUSE, PADAMUGAL,
THRIKKAKARA P.O., KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682021.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM
R1 BY ADV. SRI.KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.02.2021, THE COURT ON 5/3/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No.42 OF 2019
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of March 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This matter relates to the custody of a child.
The appellant is the father of the minor child, Aazim
Rahman. Date of birth of the child is 8/8/2008. The
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has
been dissolved in the year 2008.
2. A petition was filed before the Family Court,
Ernakulam, as O.P.No.405/2017 in the year 2017 for
permanent custody of the child. That was dismissed by
judgment dated 29/11/2018. It is against this, this
appeal was preferred by the father.
3. In the judgment in O.P.No.405/2017, the Family
Court had observed that the father had not taken any
steps after dissolution of marriage to obtain custody
or to have any contact with his child. The Family
Court also observed that the child is comfortable with
his mother. The child had no occasion to be in touch
with his own father.
Mat.Appeal.No.42 OF 2019
4. We had directed the parties to appear before
us. When we interacted, the child neither is willing
to see his father nor wants to go along with him. The
mother of the child is also very firm in her stand
against allowing the father to see the child. She said
that the present attempt is only to harass them. By
the impugned judgment of the Family Court, the father
is not allowed to have contact right. No doubt, the
Family Court was justified in holding that permanent
custody of the child be with the mother. But the
appellant being the father cannot be deprived of
contact rights with his child. It may take some time
for the child to be in familiarization with the father.
We do not find any reason to give custody to the
appellant/father. However, we feel that the father
should be given contact rights of the child at least
once in a month for a few hours. In what manner the
future right of the father to have custody shall be
decided only after his familiarization with the child.
5. In such circumstances, we are of the view that
the matter has to be remanded back to the Family Court
by setting aside the impugned judgment. Accordingly,
the impugned judgment is set aside. We direct the
Mat.Appeal.No.42 OF 2019
parties to appear before the Family Court on 27/3/2021.
On that day, the Family Court shall allow father to
spend one hour with the child between 2 pm to 3 pm.
This arrangement is to allow the father to spend one
hour on every last Saturday of every month, will
continue for a period of three months. Thereafter, the
Family Court shall decide the question as to giving any
contact right and also custody to the father for
shorter duration.
The mat. appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ms
Mat.Appeal.No.42 OF 2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 FREE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2018 IN
O.P.405/2017 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT,
ERNAKULAM
