Kerala High Court
Antly P. Antony vs Shiji John on 2 November, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
M.A.365 of 2016 1 2024:KER:81623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.1.2016 IN GOP
NO.1425 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ANTLY P. ANTONY, S/O. PROF P.A.ANTONY, PADAVAN
HOUSE, 33/506 J, BATHANI AQUA GARDENS, ARAKKAKADAVU
BRIDGE, P.O.VENNALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.A.PARVATHI MENON
P.SANJAY(K/000381/1992)
BIJU MEENATTOOR(K/620/1992)
INDIRA.K.P.(K/000085/1984)
PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)(K/000171/2017)
KIRAN NARAYANAN(K/000131/2018)
RAHUL RAJ P.(K/547/2020)
MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A(K/1033/2023)
MEERA R. MENON(K/002575/2023)
DEVIKA S. PRASAD(K/000975/2024)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SHIJI JOHN, D/O.V.R.JOHN, VALAPPILA HOUSE, WEST
THRIKKUMARAKUDAM TEMPLE ROAD, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.
BY ADV SRI.M.PREMCHAND
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.365 of 2016 2 2024:KER:81623
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
It is after 11 years that we are able to finally dispose of a dispute between
parents, for custody of their child.
2. The impugned judgment in this appeal arises out of G.O.P.No.1425/2013
filed by the father of a now 16 year old son. He alleges that his wife is not
capable of taking care of their son; and therefore, that he is entitled to his full
custody.
3. Obviously, the wife/mother resisted the afore claim and the learned
Family Court, Thrissur, delivered the impugned judgment dismissing the
G.O.P, but giving interim custody and visitation rights to the father in the
manner mentioned in it.
4. The father is in appeal before us, asserting that the findings of the
learned Family Court are in error.
5. Though we have recorded the most essential facts as afore, the fact
remains that it would not require us to deal with the contentions in detail now
because, the child is already 16 years of age - his date of birth being
30.8.2008. He was present before us today, along with his parents and we
have interacted with him.
6. The young boy, Aaron P. Antly, has come across as a remarkable
person, very articulate and very intelligent. He began crying when we asked
him with whom he wants to live permanently, saying that, though he wants to
be with his mother, he desires unrestricted access to his father also. He
explained how he has been torn between the parents throughout the litigation,
M.A.365 of 2016 3 2024:KER:81623
which has lasted for more than 11 years now; and we saw a sense of
desperation in him, being called into Courts and being made to face
humiliation, as he perceived it, in his life being controlled by others.
8. We, thereupon, interacted with the parties, being the parents of Aaron;
and they had their own versions about the manner in which they expect
custody or visitation over him, but at the end of it all, they conceded that since
their son is now 16 years, he would be the best person to take his own
decisions. The interaction was also emotional, with both sides trying to trade
charges against each other; but remarkably, when it came to the best interests
of their son, both of them agreed that this Court can take appropriate
decisions. We recognise this to be the paternal instincts, which finally would
have to exhibit, as we see today.
9. As we have said above, Aaron says that he wants to be with the mother
with unrestricted access and communication with his father. In fact, the father
said that he will buy a new feature phone for him with a SIM card, so that they
can talk to each other; and the mother did not oppose this, but, in fact,
encouraged it, saying that if her son has no inconvenience, she would not
stand in the way of him either talking or meeting his father at any point of time.
10. It is thus obvious that nothing remains for us to do, except to record
what we have heard during the interaction, namely, that Aaron will continue
with the mother - and to that extent the judgment require to be affirmed; while,
he wants unregulated access to his father - both on phone and physically, as
convenient to him and without disturbing his school and academic pursuits.
11. Smt.Parvathy Menon appearing for the father - Sri.Antly P. Antony and
M.A.365 of 2016 4 2024:KER:81623
Sri.Premchand appearing for the mother - Smt.Shiji John, conceded that, afore
being the views of their clients, the matter can be disposed of on such terms.
12. In the afore circumstances, we allow this appeal, partly confirming the
impugned judgment and decree to the extent it has given the permanent
custody of the child Aaron to the mother; however, modifying it, by ordering
that Aaron will have unrestricted and unregulated access to his father - either
through phone or even physically, without any restriction being imposed to him,
subject to his convenience and to his school and other curricular timings.
Since Aaron is already 16 years, the venue of exchange would be of no
consequence and we record that the parties have agreed to this expressly. In
fact, we record the undertaking of the mother, as made by her before us and
also affirmed by her learned counsel - Sri.Premchand, that she will facilitate all
interaction between her son and his father, without intervening in any manner
in future.
This appeal is thus ordered.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SD/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
jes
