Allowed

Savin Panattu Sudhakaran v. Greeshma Gangadharan

Kerala HC8 Jul 2021Mat.Appeal/164/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a matrimonial appeal against a Family Court order denying alternate custody under a 2020 compromise decree due to pandemic restrictions, the High Court held that such restrictions had ceased to impede transfer. The Court allowed the appeal and directed compliance with the decree granting custody to the father.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; custody to be given to the appellant father as per the compromise decree.

Savin Panattu Sudhakaran Vs Greeshma Gangadharan — 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 THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN GOP 1482/2018 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR,

¶7

THRISSUR

¶8

APPELLANT:

¶9

SAVIN PANATTU SUDHAKARAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O SUDHAKARAN, PANATTU HOUSE, ALATHUR, CHALAKUDY, PIN CODE-680 741. BY ADVS. AJITH VISWANATHAN SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH SHRI. SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL SMT.SANU S MALAKEEL SHRI.VINAY JOHN.A.J SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

GREESHMA GANGADHARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O C.G. GANGADHARAN, CHETHIKKATTIL HOUSE, KANNAMKULANGARA DESOM, KOORKENCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN CODE-680 007. BY ADVS. SRI.C.D.DILEEP SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE

¶12

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

MAT.APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2021

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶17

This appeal arises from an application filed before the Family Court, Thrissur, by the appellant to modify the compromise decree for custody in G.O.P No. 1482 of 2018.

¶18

As per the compromise decree, the permanent custody of the minor child is with the respondentmother. Father is entitled for interim custody of the child on every second and fourth Saturday between 10 am to 5 pm. The venue of exchange of the child was fixed at the residence of the respondent-mother. This compromise decree was passed on 25.06.2020.

¶19

It is stated in the compromise decree itself that the interim custody shall be handed over as and when the restrictions imposed by the Government in connection with Covid-19 is withdrawn.

¶20

Since, the custody of the child was not given,

¶21

¶22

MAT.APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2021

¶23

the appellant approached the Family court with an interlocutory application. Taking note of the restrictions imposed by the Government in connection with pandemic, the Family Court did not allow the custody of the child to the father as per the compromise decree. The appellant also appears to have sought custody for a continuous period of 12 days, that was also declined. The Family Court, however, permitted the appellant to interact with the child on every Sunday between 6 pm to 7pm through video call. Challenging this, this appeal was preferred.

¶24

We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent.

¶25

Having adverted to the present circumstances, we are of the view that there is no impediment for the respondent in giving custody of the child to the father as per the compromise decree. The Family Court ought to have safeguarded the decree passed based on the compromise in the impugned order.

¶26

MAT.APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

In such circumstances, we are of the view that custody of the child shall be given to the appellantfather as per the compromise decree. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above.

¶29

The parties are directed to comply with the compromise decree in regard to the custody until it is varied in accordance with law. No costs.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Savin Panattu Sudhakaran v. Greeshma Gangadharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savin Panattu Sudhakaran v. Greeshma Gangadharan

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

Tintu Poulose Vs Kurian John

R.Pradeep Kumar Vs R.Priya

Prasanth Mohan Das Vs Saranya Sasi

Manoj.M.v Vs Anju C.B

Kiran Raj S.S., Vs Rani Vijayan

Saranya J. Vs Pradeeshkumar S.