Kerala High Court
Midhu Mohan vs Nimitha Sathyan on 8 November, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
OP(FC)NO.624 OF 2024 2024:KER:83656
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
OP (FC) NO. 624 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2024
IN OPGW NO.787 OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN I.A./RESPONDENT IN OP:
MIDHU MOHAN, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O MOHANAN, KAROTTMANKUNNEL HOUSE, PANDAPPILLY P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686672
BY ADVS.A.T.ANILKUMAR
V.SHYLAJA
JOSE PAUL THOTTAM
FATHIMA RAZAK
ASWIN ANILKUMAR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN IA/PETITIONER IN OP:
NIMITHA SATHYAN, AGED 31 YEARS
D/O SATHYAN, KOLAMETH HOUSE, MUTTIPPADI, KALLAI,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680317
BY ADVS.MADHUSUDANAN P R
HASEENA KUNJOONJU(K/569/2015)
AADHITHYA KRISHNAN P.(K/1159/2024)
SMT HASEENA KUNJOONJU
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(FC)NO.624 OF 2024 2024:KER:83656
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The father of a 1½ year old son is the petitioner before us;
and he impugns Ext.P5 order of the learned Family Court,
Muvattupuzha.
2. The order in question was issued by the learned Family
Court in I.A.Nos.2/2024 and 3/2024 in O.P.(G&W)No.787/2024 which
Original Petition was filed by the respondent - mother seeking
permanent custody of the child. The mother, thereupon, filed the
aforementioned application seeking interim custody of the child, which
has now been allowed by the learned Family Court through the
impugned order.
3. The petitioner - father challenges the order on the ground
that the respondent - mother is incapable of taking care of the child;
and that she has always shown alienation to him, suffering from post-
partum depression for the last several months. He asserts that the
child will not be safe with the mother and, therefore, the learned
Family Court was in error in having issued the impugned order.
4. Before we move forward, we must record that we had
interacted with the parties on 30.10.2024, when both of them were
personally present before us, with the child. They, in fact, sought an
opportunity to settle their internecine disputes through mediation;
and, therefore, we referred them to the Family Counselling Centre of
this Court.
OP(FC)NO.624 OF 2024 2024:KER:83656
5. The report of the Counsellor attached to the Family
Counselling Centre, dated 2.11.2024, is available to us now; and it
indicates that the respondent - mother was earlier suffering from post-
partum depression, perhaps requiring further medical assistance also.
6. We are certain, as is well confirmed by scientific studies,
that post-partum depression in women is not uncommon, which is
curable with the right support. In fact, this is what the Counsellor
attached to the Family Counselling Centre of this Court also opines.
7. That being said, when we examine Ext.P5, the learned
Family Court has found that the best interest of a child as young as 1½
years, would be best subserved with him being in the custody of his
mother. The Court appears to have held so, after having found the
child is mingling with the mother very affectionately; and this is the
same impression we have gathered when we saw him today.
8. In fact, the child has equal affection for both the parents
and was moving from one to the other without any demur or
resistance. He is remarkably cheerful for his age and was playing
with both his parents, as also with the grandmothers, who were also
personally present.
9. Seeing the child as above, we asked the parties to take him
for lunch today and we considered this case later, at about 3.30 p.m.
10. Pertinently, the parties appear to have found some peace
between themselves, saying that they will make an attempt to live
OP(FC)NO.624 OF 2024 2024:KER:83656
together, perhaps without the interference of the elders.
11. The parties also agreed that the child be sent with the
respondent - mother, in terms of the directions of the learned Family
Court; and that the petitioner - father would also accompany them to
Bangalore, where she is presently working as a nurse. They said that
they will sort out their disputes and consider how best they can live
together, or in the worst case scenario, to find means and methods of
co-parenting the child, without causing him any trauma or distress in
future.
12. The factual scenario, therefore, has completely been
altered; and obviously, we will have to now think about modulating the
directions in Ext.P5 order of the learned Family Court.
13. This is because, the petitioner - father has been directed
to produce the child before the Court, for being handed over to the
mother; and with a further direction that the latter has to produce the
child every Saturday of each month before its Counsellor, so as to
enable the father to be in his interim custody for the day till 4 p.m.
These directions certainly have lost its relevance in view of the
consensus between the parties.
14. In the afore circumstances and with the full consent of
the parties, we allow this Original Petition confirming Ext.P5 to the
extent to which it has given interim custody of the child to the mother
pending O.P.(G&W)No.787/2024; however, reserving full liberty to the
OP(FC)NO.624 OF 2024 2024:KER:83656
petitioner - father to call the child at any time on any day on video
calls, if he is not in Bangalore; and, in the alternative, if he is in
Bangalore, to meet him any time, subject to the convenience of the
parties. We do not propose to fix a time or date for this because we
see that the parties are even willing to live with each other and we
hope that finally, they will continue as a good family.
However, should there be any impediments in working out
this, we leave full liberty to the parties to move the learned Family
Court appropriately for orders in the pending Original Petition, which
shall then be considered and apposite directions be issued as per law,
without any delay.
We further clarify that should the parties so require, the
learned Court will dispose of the O.P. on its merits, in which case, our
observations or directions herein will not fetter it at all.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SD/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
jes
OP(FC)NO.624 OF 2024 2024:KER:83656
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 624/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P (G&W) NO.787/2024 OF FAMILY COURT
MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 29.08.2024.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A 2/2024 IN OP (G&W) 787/2024 FAMILY
COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 29.08.2024.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN I.A 2/2024 IN OP (G&W)
787/2024 FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 20.09.2024
FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A 3/2024 IN O.P (G&W) NO. 787/2024 OF
FAMILY COURT MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 3.10.2024.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A NO. 2/2024 AND
I.A NO.3/2024 IN O.P (G&W) NO. 787/2024 OF FAMILY COURT
MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 3.10.2024.
// TRUE COPY //
P.S. TO JUDGE
