Dismissed

Biju Paul v. Roobi Paul

Kerala HC17 Sept 2021Mat.Appeal/310/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal by a father challenging a Family Court order that granted him only intermittent custody of two minor children while leaving permanent custody to the mother due to her stable mental state and the children's best interests.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; original order upholding permanent custody of minor children with the mother and granting only intermittent custody to the father.

Biju Paul Vs Roobi Paul — 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 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

MAT.APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 1038/2015 DATED 11/12/2017 OF FAMILY

¶9

COURT,THRISSUR

¶10

APPELLANT/S:

¶11

BIJU PAUL AGED 38 YEARS AGED 38 YEARS,S/O PAUL LAZAR, AUTOKARAN,(CORRECT HOUSE NAME IS ATTOKARAN) HOUSE,AYYANTHOLE PO, THRISSUR, PIN.680003. BY ADV SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 ROOBI PAUL AGED 31 YEARS, D/O LATE.V.V. PAUL,VAZHAPPILLY (HOUSE), KALATHODE,OLLOOKKARA PO, TRICHUR DISTRICT. PIN.680655. 2 SREYA AGED 6 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN RooBI PAUL, 1ST RESPONDENT 3 AMEYA AGED 3.1/2 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN RooBI PAUL, 1ST RESPONDENT BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN

¶14

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ.

¶16

=========================

¶17

Mat. Appeal No.310/2018

¶18

¶19

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2021

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶22

This appeal has been filed by the father of two minor children. The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.No.1038/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur. The above petition was

¶23

filed for getting permanent custody of the minor children and

¶24

MA 310/2018

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

also to appoint him as their guardian. The Family Court granted the following reliefs to the appellant :

¶27

(i) The permanent custody of the minor children shall be remained with the respondent.

¶28

(ii) The petitioner is given custody of the children on every Second Saturdays and subsequent Sundays between 10 AM of Second Saturday to 5 PM of subsequent Sunday, first 5 days of each during Onam and Christmas vacation and first 15 days each in the month of April and May during summer vacation.

¶29

(iii) The producing and handing over the children should be in the premises of Family Court, Thrissur.

¶30

(iv) There is no order as to costs.

¶31

Aggrieved by the denial of permanent custody, the

¶32

appellant approached this Court. Two girl children were born in

¶33

the year 2012 and 2014 respectively. The Family Court noted

¶34

that the children were with the mother ever since. The

¶35

-:3:-

¶36

MA 310/2018

¶37

appellant's case is that, the fact that the mother of the children

¶38

was having mental illness was not being accepted by the Family

¶39

Court. The Family Court, after examination of the mother, found

¶40

that she is very stable and mentally capable. Taking note of the tender age of the children, the Family Court was of the view that

¶41

the children should be in the custody of the mother. However,

¶42

intermittent custody was given to the father as aforenoted.

¶43

We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Father is given custody of children on every Second Saturdays and subsequent Sundays between 10 AM to 5 PM and

¶44

also given custody during vacation. The interest of the children have been protected by allowing co-parental care as above. In the absence of any evidence to decline the mother permanent

¶45

MA 310/2018

¶46

-:4:-

¶47

custody, we cannot simply accept the argument of mental illness attributed to her. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶48

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶49

Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶50

Biju Paul v. Roobi Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju Paul v. Roobi Paul

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

Anjana Devi Vs State of Kerala

Anjanadevi Vs Kamalamma

Sreekala N.P Vs Ganeesh M.K.

V.M Sindhu @ Sreemathy Thankachi, Vs K.Shaji

Shaiju S. Vs the Child Welfare Committee

Dr. S.Abdul Azeez Vs Dr.Anjana Hassan