Abdul Hameed vs Faseela
2023 Latest Caselaw 6552 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                              &
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
  TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945

                  MAT.APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2023

        OP(G&W) 429/2021 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O ALAVI ANGLATH (LATE), KAYYPPARASSERIKUNDIL HOUSE, ILAYUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673641.

BY ADVS.
P.MOHAMED SABAH
LIBIN STANLEY
SAIPOOJA
R.GAYATHRI
SADIK ISMAYIL
M.MAHIN HAMZA
SRINATH C.V.


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

   FASEELA, AGED 32 YEARS,
   D/O MUHAMMED (LATE), AFI MANZIL, MULLAMPARA, MANJERI,
   MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121.

   BY ADV SUJINI S



     THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Mat.Appeal No.159/2023                     2




                                      J U D G M E N T

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The appellant is the father of two minor children born in

the wedlock with the respondent. The dispute is in regard to

custody of the minor children. The petitioner-father approached

the Family Court, Malappuram. The respondent-mother remained

absent. The Family Court, Malappuram, however, disposed the

matter on merit and allowed the custody of the children to be with

the respondent-mother, with a reservation to the appellant-father

to meet the children on every first, third and last Saturday from

10.00 a.m. until 4.30 p.m. The father questions this order and

seeks custody of the children.

2. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned

judgment. The order is well considered and further the father has

not been denied visitorial rights. This arrangement would be

conducive to protect the wellbeing and welfare of the children.

3. We have been told by the learned counsel for the

respondent that on one of the Saturdays when children were

produced, the respondent was manhandled by the petitioner and

Police had registered a case and thereafter, the appellant did not

turn up to see the children. If the appellant is absent for

consecutive two occasions without any reasonable cause, we are of

the view that the Family Court can suspend the visitorial right

granted to the appellant. The Family Court can pass appropriate

orders after verifying the fact that whether appellant had

willfully abstained from visiting the children on Saturdays. We

give liberty to the Family Court, Malappuram, to pass appropriate

orders accordingly.

The appeal fails. Dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE DSV/15.6.23