Raveena vs Manikandan
2023 Latest Caselaw 3020 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                            &
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944
                 O.P.(FC) NO. 117 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2023 IN I.A.NO.5 OF 2023 IN
  O.P.(G&W) NO.1153 OF 2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
PETITIONER:

         RAVEENA,
         AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. VENUGOPAL, KANJEERI HOUSE,
         KURUMBATHOOR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
         DISTRICT, PIN - 676301.
         BY ADVS.
         K.R.VINOD
         M.S.LETHA
         NABIL KHADER
         CHITHRA C.EDADAN
         MOHAMMED RAZALI K.A

RESPONDENT:

         MANIKANDAN,
         AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, ANIMANGALAM
         HOUSE, POOKATTIRI EDAYOOR P.O., EDAYOOR AMSOM,
         POOVAMTHUTHARA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
         DISTRICT, PIN - 676552.
         BY ADVS.
         K.P. SUDHEER ADVOCATE
         J.RAMKUMAR

     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                   2
O.P.(FC) No.117 of 2023


                              JUDGMENT

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioner is the mother of a child born on

17.12.2021. The respondent is the father. Following

disharmony in the marital relationship they are residing

separately. The respondent filed O.P.(G&W) No.1153 of 2022

before the Family Court, Tirur seeking custody of the child.

The respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking interim custody

of the child. Ext.P1 is a copy of O.P.(G&W) No.1153 of 2022

and Ext.P2 is a copy of I.A.No.2 of 2022. As per the order

dated 15.02.2023, the Family Court directed the petitioner to

give interim custody of the child to the respondent on every

first Saturday of the month from 10.00 a.m. till 5.00 p.m. The

petitioner filed I.A.No.5 of 2023 pointing out the grievance

that giving custody of the child for such a long duration is not

conducive to the well-being of the child since the child is now

breastfed. Ext.P5 is a copy of I.A.No.5 of 2023. The Family

Court after hearing both sides as per order dated 17.02.2023

modified the order of interim custody. It was directed that the

O.P.(FC) No.117 of 2023

petitioner will give interim custody of the child to the

respondent from 10.00 a.m. till 1.00 p.m. alone on every first

Saturday of the month. Ext.P6 is that order. The petitioner

challenges the said order in this Original Petition filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. A petition for amendment was filed by the

petitioner as I.A.No.1 of 2023 and the same was allowed on

10.03.2023. Notice was directed to be served on the

respondent by Special Messenger.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

4. The child is in the custody of the petitioner-mother.

The petitioner and the respondent are living separately. Being

a child of tender age and said to be a breastfeeding child, the

petitioner has to be allowed to be in custody of the child.

There is no doubt that the requirements of such a child can be

met by the mother alone. At the same time, the child should

be given an opportunity to see and get acquainted with the

O.P.(FC) No.117 of 2023

father as well. In such circumstances, the order of the Family

Court that the respondent-father was allowed to be in custody

of the child from 10.00 a.m. till 1.00 p.m. on one day in a

month, cannot be said to be incorrect. While giving such

custody, there would not be any inconvenience to the child,

even if it is breastfed.

5. As per Ext.P6 order, custody of the child is given to

the respondent from 10.00 a.m. till 1.00 p.m. on the same

terms and conditions as contained in Ext.P4. So the

respondent can have custody only from the premises of the

Family Court, Tirur. Being the father, the respondent

necessarily would take utmost care and caution while the child

is in his custody.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the concern of the mother is that if the

child is allowed to be interacted by the father in her absence,

that may cause stress to the child. There is no reason for such

an apprehension. In the circumstances, we are of the view

that no interference to Ext.P6 order is required by this Court

O.P.(FC) No.117 of 2023

in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India. This Original Petition is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr

O.P.(FC) No.117 of 2023

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 117/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE O.P.(G&W) NO.1153/2022 DATED 05.12.2022 EXHIBIT P2 PETITION. THE COPY OF IA NO 2/2022 IN O.P(G&W) NO.1153/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 06.12.2022 EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.

2/2022 IN O.P(G&W) NO.1153/2022 DATED 15.02.2023 EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 2/2022 IN O.P (G&W) NO.1153/2022 DATED 15.02.2023 EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF IA NO. 5/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.02.2023 EXHIBIT P6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 5/2023 IN O.P(G&W) NO.1153/2022 DATED 17.02.2023