Laila Beegam vs Noufal T. T
2024 Latest Caselaw 27623 Ker

Kerala High Court

Laila Beegam vs Noufal T. T on 13 September, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                                  &

             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

    FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946

                       OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2024

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.642 OF 2024 OF FAMILY

COURT, OTTAPPALAM

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

            LAILA BEEGAM,
            AGED 25 YEARS
            D/O UMMAR, THOTTASSERY VEETIL, VILAYUR P. O., PATTAMBI
            TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN: 679 309, NOW
            RESIDING AT VEGAS APARTMENT, KILLIKKAVU TEMPLE ROAD,
            KANNIYAMPURAM P. O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD
            DISTRICT, KERALA,, PIN - 679104


            BY ADVS.
            PRABHA R.MENON
            ARUN SAMUEL




RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1       NOUFAL T. T.,
            AGED 36 YEARS
            S/O MUHAMMED, THOTTUNGALTHODI VEETIL, KIZHAKKUMPADAM P.
            O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA,
            PIN 679 326, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
            HOLDER MIRSHAD, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O UMMAR, RESIDING AT
            THOTTUNGALTHODI VEETIL, KIZHAKKUMPADAM P. O.,
            PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA,, PIN
            - 679326

    2       SAINA,
            AGED 57 YEARS
            W/O MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT THOTTUNGALTHODI VEETIL,
            KIZHAKKUMPADAM P. O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM
                                                                2024:KER:71043
OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2024

                                     2


            DISTRICT, KERALA,, PIN - 679326

    3       MUHAMMED,
            AGED 62 YEARS
            S/O HAMSA, RESIDING AT THOTTUNGALTHODI VEETIL,
            KIZHAKKUMPADAM P. O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM
            DISTRICT, KERALA,, PIN - 679326



            SRI T K SANDEEP


     THIS   OP   (FAMILY   COURT)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
13.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                            2024:KER:71043
OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2024

                                     3


                                 JUDGMENT

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)

The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order of

the learned Family Court, Ottappalam, through

which, certain arrangements have been made with

respect to the visitation and interim custody of

her child, in favour of the respondents.

2. The petitioner is the mother of a

seven year old child and, vide Ext.P9, the learned

Court has allowed the 1st respondent - her father,

who is abroad - to interact with her on all

Sundays, between 6.30 P.M on 7 P.M on video call;

and further permitted respondents 2 and 3 - her

grandparents, to be in her interim custody from

5.30 P.M. on 2nd and 4th Fridays, till 5.30 P.M. on

the ensuing Sunday.

3. The petitioner asserts that, since

the 3rd respondent - her father-in-law, treated

her with great cruelty in the past, it is more 2024:KER:71043 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2024

than probable that his behaviour to the child will

be far worse. She, thus prays that Ext.P9, to

extent to which it offers interim custody of the

child to the grandparents, be vacated; though

conceding that they can be allowed to interact

with her on any day that this Court may fix.

4. Sri.Arun Samuel - learned counsel for

the petitioner, explained that when the 1st

respondent - father is not in India, the grant of

custody of the child to the grandparents in an

overnight arrangement, will cause her great

trauma, particularly because she is only seven

years in age, having lived with his client and no

one else till now. He, therefore, reiteratingly

prayed that Ext.P9 be set aside; however,

informing us that the petitioner has already moved

an application to have an earlier compromise

decree - based on which Ext.P9 has been issued -

set aside, on the ground that it was obtained by 2024:KER:71043 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2024

misrepresentation, coercion and fraud. He thus

reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P9 be set aside.

5. Interestingly, in response to the

afore submissions, the learned counsel for

respondents - Sri.T.K.Sandeep, submitted that the

first respondent has now come to Kerala and is

available here till 30.09.2024. He added that,

therefore, all the afore assertions against Ext.P9

would pale into insignificance because, the father

himself is now available.

6. As regards the impugned order,

Sri.T.K.Sandeep argued that the interaction of the

minor, as ordered therein, with the father and

also the overnight interim custody offered to the

grandparents, are without error because, even in

the pleadings in this case, the petitioner does

not impel any allegation against the said

respondents qua the child; and that she is harping

solely upon some experiences which she alleges she 2024:KER:71043 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2024

had to face from them. He asserted that all such

imputations are untrue and thus prayed that Ext.P9

be set aside.

7. We have evaluated the afore rival

submissions, on the touchstone of the various

materials on record, particularly Ext.P9.

8. As correctly told to us by Sri.Arun

Samuel, the learned Family Court has issued Ext.P9

edificed on an earlier compromise decree between

the parties. However, as indited above, the

petitioner now says that she has moved an

application, namely Ext.P3, to have the said

decree set aside; but it is without doubt that it

has not been yet allowed.

9. That being so, Ext.P9, to the extent

to which it travels with the terms of compromise

decree between the parties, cannot be found fault

with; but certainly, a question arises as to if a

child of seven years would be comfortable 2024:KER:71043 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2024

overnight with the grandparents alone, without her

father. Of course, until 30.09.2024, perhaps this

may not be relevant, but beyond that it could pose

a matter of some concern. However, this is for the

learned Family Court to decide appositely,

provided the parties approach it appropriately.

10. As matters now stand, since it is

stated that the father is now in Kerala; and since

we are also told by the learned counsel for the

parties that another order has been issued by the

learned Family Court granting interim custody of

the child to him and to the grandparents for five

days from 17.09.2024, we find no reason to

intervene at this stage, because the parties

certainly have all liberties open to them before

the learned Family court, as per law.

In the afore circumstances, with all such

liberties being left open to the parties, we close

this Original Petition.

2024:KER:71043 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2024

We, however, clarify that if the mother is

to approach the learned Family Court against

Ext.P9 in any manner, it shall be considered in

its proper perspective, after affording necessary

opportunities to both sides, without being

trammeled or effected by any of observations

herein.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE

SAS 2024:KER:71043 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 577/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/01/2024 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM IN O.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 16/01/2024 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM IN O. P. NO. 651/2023 ALONG WITH THE COMPROMISE PETITION

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NUMBERED AS I. A. NO. 7/2024 IN O. P. NO. 651/2023 DATED 20/05/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 22/05/2024 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I. A. NO. 7/2024 IN O. P. NO. 651/2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DIARY EXTRACT IN I. A. NO.

7/2024 IN O. P. NO. 651/2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NUMBERED AS I. A. NO. 3/2024 IN O. P. NO. 642/2024 DATED 04/07/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NUMBERED AS I. A. NO. 4/2024 IN O. P. NO. 642/2024 DATED 04/07/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 15/08/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I. A. NO. 3/2024 IN O. P. NO. 642/2024 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 22/08/2024 IN I. A. NOS. 3/2024 AND 4/2024 IN 2024:KER:71043 OP (FC) NO. 577 OF 2024

O. P. NO. 642/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03/09/2024 NUMBERED AS I. A. NO. 11/2024 IN O. P. NO. 642/2024 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 07/09/2024 FILED IN I. A. NO. 11/2024 IN O. P. NO. 642/2024 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM