Kerala High Court
Fahisa P.M vs Arshad Liyaqath on 9 October, 2025
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
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 581 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2025 IN IA NO.10/2025 IN OP
NO.157 OF 2025 OF FAMILY COURT, KUNNAMKULAM
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
FAHISA P.M., AGED 30 YEARS
D/O KUNHUMON P.A, PALLIMANJALIL MELETHIL HOUSE,
PERUMPILAVUAMSOMDESOM, PERUMPILAVU P.O., PERUMPILAVU
VILLAGE, PIN - 680519
SMT.RIZWANA A.A.
SHRI.AQIB SOHAIL P.S.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ARSHAD LIYAQATH, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O LIYAQATH, VILAKKERY HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPUAMSOM DESOM,
PERUMPADAPPU P.O., PERUMPADAPPU VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679580
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74658
OP (FC) NO. 581 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
Though the petitioner challenges Ext.P13 order in IA
No.10/2025 on various grounds, she concedes that she has
preferred Ext.P18 application, seeking that the same be modified
and for certain other additional reliefs.
2. Smt.Rizwana A.A - learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that, though her client had no objection to Ext.P13
order at the first instance and had, in fact, complied with it by
allowing the child to be in the overnight custody of the
respondent - father on 12.09.2025 and 13.09.2025 and
thereafter; when the child was returned on 28.09.2025, he had
started exhibiting stress and reluctance to go back to his father.
She further explained that, instead of showering love on the child
during the time when the respondent was in custody, he used
him to make allegations and to impel complaints against her
client before the Police and the child helpline; and hence that the
child has been now subjected to psychological trauma, which
requires a medical evaluation. She then showed us that, the
prayer in Ext.P18 is to the effect that the overnight custody
2025:KER:74658
OP (FC) NO. 581 OF 2025
granted to the father be suspended for some time, so that the
psychological evaluation of the child can be done and further to
restrain the respondent from "misusing child helpline/police or
third-party mechanisms for collateral purposes" ( sic). She
concluded saying that, her client has no other option but to
approach this Court against Ext.P13 order, because the learned
Family Court has not considered Ext.P18 even now, though it had
been filed on 03.10.2025.
3. Even the submissions of the learned counsel render it
ineluctable that the contention of the petitioner is not against
Ext.P13 order per se, but is hinged on certain facts which she
says happened after the said order and when it was obeyed by
her. Since the petitioner has already moved Ext.P18 application
before the learned Family Court, we cannot intervene at this
stage since, that would be to intrude into the jurisdiction of the
said Court. However, we are left without doubt that the learned
Family Court should consider Ext.P18 application without any
further delay, particularly since it relates to the well-being and
care of the minor child.
4. In such perspective, though we are not intervening
with Ext.P13 at this stage, we direct the learned Family Court,
2025:KER:74658
OP (FC) NO. 581 OF 2025
Kunnamkulam, to take up Ext.P18 application - if it is still
pending, and dispose of the same, after affording necessary
opportunities to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible, but
not later than ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Needless to say, since we have not entered into the
merits of any of the rival contentions, including on the validity of
Ext.P13, they are all left open to be invoked by the parties, if they
are so interested, in future.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
stu
2025:KER:74658
OP (FC) NO. 581 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 581/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO.
2303/2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
KUNNAMKULAM UNDER THE DISSOLUTION OF MUSLIM
MARRIAGES ACT, 1939 DATED 3.09.2024
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO. 157/2025 DATED
18.01.2025
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 2/2025 DATED
18.01.2025
Exhibit P4 THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS DATED 12.05.2025 ALONG
WITH THE AFORESAID ANNEXURES
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED
Exhibit P6 THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS DATED 12.05.2025 ALONG
WITH THE DOCUMENTS
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2025
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD DATED
10.08.2025 OBTAINED FROM THE DENTAL CLINIC
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 10/2025 DATED
08.08.2025
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED
22.08.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE CHILD
SUPPORT LAWYER DATED 27.08.2025
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2025
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 13/2025 DATED
02.09.2025 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
EXHIBIT P14
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2025
Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 20/2025 DATED
25.09.2025
2025:KER:74658
OP (FC) NO. 581 OF 2025
Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
25.09.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST
CLAP REPORT
Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 22/2025 DATED
3.10.2025
Exhibit P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DATED
6.10.2025 ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT
