Reji Thomas vs Julie Sebstian
2021 Latest Caselaw 18147 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                 &
         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                   MAT.APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2017
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(G&W) 317/2013 OF FAMILY COURT,
                         PALA, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

          REJI THOMAS
          AGED 42 YEARS
          S/O E.M. THOMAS, MADUCKAYIL HOUSE, KOZHA P.O,
          KURAVILANGAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
          KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN. 686640.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.SHYAM PADMAN
          SRI.C.M.ANDREWS
          SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

          JULIE SEBSTIAN
          AGED 38 YEARS, D/O O.J. SEBASTIAN, ODACKAL HOUSE,
          KALATHOOKKADAV P.O, MEENACHIL TALUK,
          KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN. 686579.
          BY ADVS.
          SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
          SMT.AFSANA ASHRAF
          SMT.ANN MALU ALBI
          SRI.DENNY VARGHESE
          SRI.JOHN T. SEBASTIAN
          SRI.LIJO RAJU
          SMT.K.R.MONISHA
          SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
          SMT.PRABHA JOSE
          SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE


THIS MATRIMONIAL   APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE    COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 M.A.T.APPEAL NO.309/2017

                                       2




                                 JUDGMENT

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

This appeal is filed at the instance of the

father of two minor children aggrieved by the

dismissal of his petition for custody of the

children. Admittedly, pending appeal, the eldest

child attained majority. The dispute now remains is

in regard to the custody of the younger child. The

younger child was born on 31/3/2009.

2. At the time of filing the petition for

custody, respondent/mother was working as a tutor in

a nursing College at Ernakulam. Now admittedly the

respondent along with the youngest child are residing

at U.K. and she is said to be working as a Nurse.

3. The Family Court did not grant any

visitation rights or contact rights to the appellant.

At the time of filing the petition for custody,

appellant was working at Visakhapatanam. Taking note M.A.T.APPEAL NO.309/2017

of this fact, Family Court observed that appellant

is at liberty to file interlocutory application for

interacting with the children.

4. Taking note of the subsequent events, we are

of the view that seeking custody of the youngest

child by the appellant would be a futile exercise.

However, the appellant cannot be deprived of contact

rights of the child. We are of the view that the

respondent should allow the appellant to contact the

child on every Sunday between 7.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Indian Standard Time online through any platform

convenient for both the parties. We also feel that

the appellant should be given custody of the child

for a short duration at least for three days on every

visit by the respondent to India along with the

child. The respondent shall intimate in advance about

her visit to India to the appellant.

We are therefore of the view that the

impugned judgment ought to be modified to the extent M.A.T.APPEAL NO.309/2017

above allowing the appellant to contact the child as

above. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified

and the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

ww M.A.T.APPEAL NO.309/2017

APPENDIX

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2014 IN I.A. NO.1352/2014 IN O.P.(G&V) NO.317/2013 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALA.