Dismissed

Indu v. Bralvi

Kerala HC27 Nov 2018Mat.Appeal/1076/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the Kerala High Court dismissed the mother's challenge to the Family Court's award of interim custody to the father for two days monthly. The Court held that the father's right to maintain a relationship with his minor child must be upheld despite the mother's contention regarding the child's academic routine.

What did the court decide?

The Matrimonial Appeal was dismissed, and the interim custody arrangement in favour of the respondent father was upheld.

Indu Vs Bralvi — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No. 1076 of 2018

¶8

GOP 486/2017 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

¶9

APPELLANT (RESPONDENT IN GOP):

¶10

INDU, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.RAMANATHAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA P.O., NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680566

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOMOHANAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(PETITIONER IN GOP):

¶13

1 BRALVI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN, CHANAYIL HOUSE, THIRUTHIKKAD DESOM, PORKKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680569

¶14

2 ROHAN (MINOR), AGED 8 YEARS, S/O.BRALVI, CHANAYIL HOUSE, THIRUTHIKKAD DESOM, PORKKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,680569 (PRESENTLY RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT).

¶15

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Mat.Appeal.No. 1076 of 2018 : 2 :

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶19

In the above appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the mother of a minor child aged 8 years, who is the respondent in GOP No.486/2017 before the Family Court, Thrissur is challenging the judgment passed by that court on 2.7.2018.

¶20

The father, who is the respondent herein, had approached the Family Court seeking permanent custody of the minor boy who was aged 8 years at the time of filing of the original petition. Their existed stiff matrimonial disputes between the parties at that time and they were living separated. The minor boy, Master Rohan, was staying with the appellant since 2014, after she left the company of the respondent. The respondent had contended before the court below that, he used to meet the child till 2017. But afterwords, he was prevented from meeting the child even at the school. Controverting the claim, the appellant contended that the respondent is a person of bad habits and he never loved the minor child. Contention raised

¶21

Mat.Appeal.No. 1076 of 2018 : 3 :

¶22

by the appellant before the court below was that the respondent herein had criminal antecedents and he is residing with his brother who is also a bachelor. It was pointed out that, both of them may not be available in the residence during day time and the child, if entrusted, may not have any company at their residence. The respondent herein has refuted all such allegations.

¶23

The court below, after evaluating the evidence on record and taking into consideration of the entire circumstances, found that the respondent herein cannot be granted with permanent custody of the child. It was found that, eventhough the appellant is employed, she is able to cater the needs of the child as she is residing with her own parents. The court below found that, the child is now admitted to a very good school in Valappad near to the residence of the appellant and he is studying in II standard. The court below also found that, right from the birth of the minor child he is with the mother and therefore it is not proper to give custody of the child to the father, especially on taking into consideration of the circumstances prevailing at his residence. Therefore the court below declined

¶24

Mat.Appeal.No. 1076 of 2018 : 4 :

¶25

the relief of permanent custody sought for by the respondent. However, the court below found that the respondent herein, being the father of the child, is entitled to have interim custody of the child for developing acquaintance with the child and for sharing his love and affection. Hence the court below had directed the appellant to hand over interim custody of the child to the respondent on all second Saturdays from 10.00 a.m. till 5.00 p.m.

¶26

on the subsequent Sundays. It was directed that, such arrangement should continue until any modification ordered in future.

¶27

The appellant is challenging the arrangement of interim

¶28

custody provided by the court below in favour of the respondent. The only contention raised is that, the interim custody provided will affect the studies of the child. It is also contended that the child has to incur extensive travel for the purpose of implementation of the visitation right/interim custody provided. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also contended that the periodicity of the visitation right need be altered.

¶29

We do not find any merit in the contentions mentioned as above. The fact that the respondent is the biological father of

¶30

Mat.Appeal.No. 1076 of 2018 : 5 :

¶31

the minor child cannot be disputed. Eventhough the spouses are living separated, the right of the father to have acquaintance with the child cannot be denied. It is the basic right of the father to show love and affection to the child, the opportunity of which cannot be denied. Eventhough the court below had found that the father is not entitled to have permanent custody of the child, the rights of the father in this respect cannot be denied. With respect to the arrangement of interim custody provided in the impugned order, we are constrained to observe that, the custody for 2 days once in a month which is provided by the court below, is quite reasonable and moderate.

¶32

Contention raised by the appellant is that the child is having no acquaintance with the father and that he will be reluctant to go along with the father to have overnight stay at the residence of the father. But we notice that, during the pendency of the original petition before the Family Court, the respondent herein was provided with visitation rights and therefore he will be having better acquaintance with the child. However, we are of the opinion that, such acquaintance need to be developed with the father through the interim custody provided in the order impugned

¶33

Mat.Appeal.No. 1076 of 2018 : 6 :

¶34

herein.

¶35

Result of the above discussion is that, we do not find any merit in the appeal in order to interfere with the impugned order for directing any modification with respect to the interim custody provided in favour of the respondent. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶36

It is made clear that the above judgment will not stand in the way of the appellant approaching the Family Court seeking modification of the interim arrangement, if there is any substantial change in the circumstances of the parties or the minor child.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR

JUDGE

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Indu v. Bralvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indu v. Bralvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navaf Vs Shima

Jessy Sunil Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Hunaismoosa, Vs the State Police Chief Police

Lakshmi V.P. Vs Aneesh M.U.

Suveesh Vs Bijinapal P.

Padmaja Nair, Vs Additional District Magistrate