Allowed

Reji Thomas v. Julie Sebstian

Kerala HC3 Sept 2021Mat.Appeal/309/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

While noting the oldest child has attained majority, the Court held that an appeal for custody of the younger child residing abroad would be futile. However, modifying the impugned judgment, the Court granted online contact rights every Sunday and physical custody for three days during the mother's visits to India.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment modified to allow online contact on Sundays and custody for three days during visits to India.

Reji Thomas Vs Julie Sebstian — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943 MAT.APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2017

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(G&W) 317/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA, KOTTAYAM

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

REJI THOMAS AGED 42 YEARS S/O E.M. THOMAS, MADUCKAYIL HOUSE, KOZHA P.O, KURAVILANGAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN. 686640. BY ADVS. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

JULIE SEBSTIAN AGED 38 YEARS, D/O O.J. SEBASTIAN, ODACKAL HOUSE, KALATHOOKKADAV P.O, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN. 686579. BY ADVS. SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.AFSANA ASHRAF SMT.ANN MALU ALBI SRI.DENNY VARGHESE SRI.JOHN T. SEBASTIAN SRI.LIJO RAJU SMT.K.R.MONISHA SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SMT.PRABHA JOSE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶12

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

M.A.T.APPEAL NO.309/2017

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶17

This appeal is filed at the instance of the

¶18

father of two minor children aggrieved by the

¶19

dismissal of his petition for custody of the children. Admittedly, pending appeal, the eldest

¶20

child attained majority. The dispute now remains is in regard to the custody of the younger child. The younger child was born on 31/3/2009.

¶21

custody, respondent/mother was working as a tutor in a nursing College at Ernakulam. Now admittedly the respondent along with the youngest child are residing at U.K. and she is said to be working as a Nurse.

¶22

visitation rights or contact rights to the appellant. At the time of filing the petition for custody,

¶23

appellant was working at Visakhapatanam. Taking note

¶24

M.A.T.APPEAL NO.309/2017

¶25

¶26

of this fact, Family Court observed that appellant is at liberty to file interlocutory application for

¶27

interacting with the children.

¶28

Taking note of the subsequent events, we are of the view that seeking custody of the youngest child by the appellant would be a futile exercise. However, the appellant cannot be deprived of contact rights of the child. We are of the view that the respondent should allow the appellant to contact the child on every Sunday between 7.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. Indian Standard Time online through any platform convenient for both the parties. We also feel that the appellant should be given custody of the child for a short duration at least for three days on every visit by the respondent to India along with the child. The respondent shall intimate in advance about her visit to India to the appellant.

¶29

We are therefore of the view that the

¶30

impugned judgment ought to be modified to the extent

¶31

M.A.T.APPEAL NO.309/2017

¶32

above allowing the appellant to contact the child as above. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified

¶33

and the appeal is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶38

¶39

M.A.T.APPEAL NO.309/2017

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:

¶43

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2014 IN I.A. NO.1352/2014 IN O.P.(G&V) NO.317/2013 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALA.

Reji Thomas v. Julie Sebstian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reji Thomas v. Julie Sebstian

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

Jith K.M Vs Sandeepa T.A

Arun Cleetus Vs Nimisha Thomas

Prajitha Vs Suvesh

Yyyyy Vs Xxxx

Vidya Vs Hari

Xxxxxxx Vs Yyyyy