Kerala High Court
Bivin K. Venunathan vs Asha Ravi on 8 September, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:66956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2022 IN OP NO.2475 OF 2017
OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN O.P:
BIVIN K. VENUNATHAN, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.K.P.VENUNATHAN, RESIDING AT 41/3501,
KOMBARA HOUSE, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
ERNAKULAM-682018.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (SR.)
SMT.R.RANJANIE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN O.P:
ASHA RAVI, D/O.RAVI, ASHA BHAVAN,
VELLOOR.P.O, PAMBADI, KOTTAYAM-686501.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.S.RANJIT (K/250/1999)
SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66956
Mat Appeal 220/22
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant assails the judgment of the learned Family
Court, Ernakulam, in O.P.No.2475/2017, because his child - who
is stated to be 11 years in age now - has been allowed to be in
the interim custody of the respondent - who is her mother,
whenever the latter is in India.
2. Most of the facts in this case are not disputed.
3. The fact that the respondent-mother is in Australia is
without contest; and that she comes to India once in a while is
also admitted. The learned Family Court has allowed the
appellant-father to be in the permanent custody of the child, but
has allowed the respondent to make video/audio calls on certain
days, and to be in her interim custody every Friday till the
ensuing Sunday; as also during her school vacations, whenever the
former is in India. There is also a condition imposed that she
shall surrender her Passport for exercising such rights.
2025:KER:66956
4. Smt.R.Ranjanie - learned counsel for the appellant,
argued that the child is unwilling to go to the mother because she
has been separated from her ever since she was an infant. She
then added that her client has absolutely no objection in the child
being with the mother, but that the directions in the judgment
are so vague that it will cause grave inconvenience to both the
father and the daughter. She explained that when the learned
Family Court directed the child to be in the interim custody of
the mother every weekend and also for the school vacations, but
without specifying that the respondent should be in India during
those periods - thus leaving it to be a game of chance to be
executed whenever she is home - hence rendering it wholly
amorphous. She added that, in any event, the child is unwilling
to go to the mother, which was disclosed when she was asked to
go the latter as per the interim order of this Court dated
07.08.2025; and prayed that this Appeal be allowed.
5. However, the respondent-mother, through her learned
2025:KER:66956
counsel - Sri.Gokul Das VVH, takes the stand that the
arrangement made by the learned Family Court is without
prejudice to either side because, she will be in India once in a
while and that her right to be with the child at least during those
periods cannot be denied to her. Sri.Gokul Das further pleaded
that the right of his client to talk to the child has been limited
and requested that it be made unlimited. He then added that the
submissions of Smt.R.Ranjanie, that the child was unwilling to go
to the mother in terms of the interim order of this Court dated
07.08.2025, is without truth; and that it was, in fact, the
appellant who refused to give back the child on 05.09.2025, thus
triggering certain unsavory events between them. He thus prayed
that this Appeal be dismissed.
6. It is not necessary, as is evident from the afore
narration of facts, that the evidence be examined or evaluated.
This is because, the Appeal is filed by the father who resists only
the order of the learned Family Court granting interim custody of
2025:KER:66956
the child to the mother on certain specified dates and that too
whenever she is in India. However, we find favour with the
submissions of Smt.R.Ranjanie that the directions of the learned
Family Court create an uncertain situation because, the respondent
has not been directed to provide her details of stay or travel to
India. We are sure that this requires to be properly clarified.
7. Further, even though the learned Family Court has
allowed the father to talk to the child, it has been done in a
regimented manner, namely that she can do so only for 30
minutes at 6 P.M. on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. She being
the mother and since the child is 12 years, we are sure that they
ought to interact to the maximum possible, but without any
inconvenience to the latter.
8. In fact, when we considered this matter on 07.08.2025,
we passed an interim order which has been referred to by the
learned counsel on both sides as afore. Since the said order is a
self-speaking one, we extract it as under:
2025:KER:66956
This application has been filed by the respondent-
wife in the Appeal, seeking that the child be given in
her custody for the 'Onam' Holidays, explaining that she
is travelling from Australia for this purpose and will
reach India on 27.08.2025, to leave on 07.09.2025.
Smt.R.Ranjanie - learned counsel for the
appellant-husband, submitted that her client has no
objection for the child being given in interim custody of
the respondent; but that on the 'Thiruvonam' day, her
grandparents would like to have her with them.
We are of the view that the rival interests should
be balanced well and hence, pass the following order:
The mother will be at liberty to take interim
custody of the child from 10 A.M. on 30.08.2025 till 5
P.M. on 07.09.2025. However, this will be on condition
that the child will be allowed to be with her
grandparents on the 'Thiruvonam' day, namely on
05.09.2025, from 9 A.M. till 5 P.M. The place of
exchange for this shall be the front gate of the
residential house of the appellant-husband.
Post on 08.09.2025.
9. It is obvious that even the appellant does not have any
serious case against the child spending time with the mother;
though Smt.Ranjanie - his learned counsel, whisperingly asserts to
the contrary. We cannot approve this, because as long as the
respondent is the mother, the child must be encouraged to spend
time with her.
10. Coming back to the directions in the judgment, we
2025:KER:66956
cannot find it to be in error, except that there should be some
amount of certainty added to it.
In such perspective, we order this Appeal in the following
manner:
a) The respondent is allowed to talk to the child through
video/audio calls everyday between 6 P.M. and 8 P.M. IST;
however, without causing any inconvenience to her curricular or
extra-curricular activities.
b) We direct the respondent to inform the appellant of her
visit to India at least two weeks in advance, so that he can then
get ready for the visitation and interim custody arrangements
made by the learned Family Court in the impugned judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
RR
