Ummar vs Safreena
2022 Latest Caselaw 9350 Ker

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                             &
       THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA,
                           1944
              MAT.APPEAL NO. 815 OF 2013
       OP 65/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

         UMMAR, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 46 YEARS,
         THEYIPPURATH HOUSE, NADERI AMSOM DESOM,
         KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

         BY ADV SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

         SAFREENA,
         AGED 33 YEARS,
         S/O.MOIDEEN KOYA, KAVU VALAPPIL HOUSE,
         ELATHUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
         PIN-673303.

         BY ADV SMT.K.DEEPA PAYYANUR


     THIS   MATRIMONIAL    APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Mat.Appeal No.815 OF 2013        2




                             JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This Mat. Appeal arises from the judgment of the

Family Court, Vatakara, in a custody matter. The

appellant is the petitioner before the Family Court. In the

wedlock with the respondent, three children were born to

the appellant. They were aged 5 and 3 years at the time

of filing of the petition in the year 2011. Now perhaps

they have attained age of 16 and 14 years. The Family

Court did not grant any relief to the appellant/petitioner.

This is how the appellant/petitioner approached this

Court.

2. We heard both sides.

3. We perused the judgment dated 16.07.2013. It

has to be noted that the respondent, who was examined

as RW1, in cross-examination, had stated that she has no

objection in appellant seeing his children. However, she

objected to giving custody to the appellant for the reason

that he was a drunkard.

4. At this point of time, we can't think about

granting an overnight custody or long duration custody to

the appellant, especially he has not developed any

familiarity with the children. However, we are of the view

that the appellant can be given contact rights to the

children. The Family Court ought not to have dismissed

the original petition as such. To the best interest of the

children, it is appropriate that they should also build

intimacy with their own father. Accordingly, we allow the

appellant to meet the children from the premises of the

Family Court, Vatakara, on every second Saturday

between 3.00 p.m to 4.30 p.m. If the appellant is of the

view that he should be given custody based on the

intimacy with the children, he can move the Family Court,

Vatakara, in future for modification of the present

judgment.

With the slight modification of the impugned

judgment as above, we dispose this appeal.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE DSV/11.08.2022