Dismissed

Joy John, v. Shelly

Kerala HC18 Mar 2021Mat.Appeal/163/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This matrimonial appeal by a divorced father seeking permanent custody of his 16-year-old son was dismissed. The Court reiterated the Family Court's reasoning that the child, after interaction, expressed a strong desire not to live with the father, and thus retained custody with the mother.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the father seeking permanent custody of the minor child was dismissed. No orders as to costs.

Joy John, Vs Shelly — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No.163 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(G & W) NO.1326/2016 DATED 30-11-2021 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶9

-------

¶10

APPELLANT/S:

¶11

JOY JOHN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. JOHN, VARIKKASSERY HOUSE, MUTHRATHIKKARA DESOM, PARAPPUKKARA P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

SHELLY, AGED 50, W/O. JOY JOHN, VARIKKASSERY HOUSE, GOLDEN NEST RESIDENTS, INFANT JESUS ROAD, PERUMPADANNA, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 683 513.

¶15

MINOR

¶16

JOEL VARIKKASSERY, AGED 16, S/O. JOHN, VARIKKASSERY HOUSE, MUTHRATHIKKARA DESOM, PARAPPUKKARA P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 733.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. M.V.S.NAMPOOTHIRY(CAVEATOR)

¶18

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Mat.Appeal.No.163/2021 2

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 18th day of March 2021

¶22

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J

¶23

This appeal arises from the dismissal of the original petition for permanent custody of the minor child. The appellant is the father. His application has been dismissed. The minor child was born in the wedlock of the appellant with the respondent on 8/11/2005. The child is in the custody of the mother. The matrimonial relationship between the appellant and respondent has come to an end by a decree of divorce. The Family Court gave valid reasons for declining permanent custody of the minor child to the father. The Family Court also ascertained the wishes and views of the child. Strong view taken by the child that he does not want to be with the father, persuaded the Family Court to dismiss the plea of custody.

¶24

Mat.Appeal.No.163/2021 3

¶25

We directed the parties to be present before

¶26

us along with the child. We interacted with the child. After interaction with the child, we are also of the view that the child does not want to be in the company of the father. The child is now nearing 16 years. We need to give importance to his views and opinion.

¶27

In light of the factual discussions in the impugned judgment and the opinion expressed by the child before us, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Joy John, v. Shelly

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy John, v. Shelly

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaithachal Radha, Vs v.P.Sajeevan

Benjeena P. J. Vs C. P. Pappachan

Laljith, Vs Shobi

Rajeesh Vs Archana

V.K.Devarajan Vs the Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificates

Reneesha P.V Vs Shamsuddeen Raja Abdul Khader