Partly allowed

Anoop Chandran v. Divya R.Nair

Kerala HC28 Nov 2022OP (FC)/599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified a Family Court order that completely restrained a father from interacting with his minor child. Relying on Yashita Sahu, the Court allowed limited phone contact between specific hours to ensure the child retains contact with both parents pending the disposal of the interference application.

What did the court decide?

Modified the order restraining the petitioner from interaction to permit phone contact between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

Anoop Chandran Vs Divya R.Nair — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶6

¶7

O.P.(FC)NO.599OF 2022

¶8

IN ORDER IN I.A.No.5 OF 2022 IN O.P.(G&W)No.294 OF 2022
ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

ANOOP CHANDRAN,
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O GOKULACHANDRAN,
AALUVELIL LAKSHMIPURAM VEEDU,
KUTTOOR P.O., KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA
TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 689 106

¶11

BY ADVS.
K.S.ARUNDAS
ABIJITH.K
AMBILY JOSHY

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 DIVYA R. NAIR, D/O G. RAVEENDRAN NAIR,
PATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NIRANAM P.O., KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA
TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT
BOSCHER 511 BUILDING, FLAT NO.22, BLOCK NO.255,
NEAR A1 AMEN MOSQUE, OPPOSITE SPAR HYPERMARKET.
MUSCAT. SULTANATE OF OMAN, REPRESENTED BY
P.K.RADHAMMA, W/O G.RAVEENDRAN NAIR,
PATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NIRANAM P.O., KADAPRA
VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689621

¶14

¶15

O.P.(FC)No.599 of 2022

¶16

2 G. RAVEENDRAN NAIR,
AGED 80 YEARS,
PATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NIRANAM P.O., KADAPRA
VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN
- 689621

¶17

3 P.K. RADHAMMA,
AGED 70 YEARS,
PATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NIRANAM P.O., KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689621

¶18

BY ADVS.
ASHA CHERIAN
THOMAS KUTTY M.A.(K/113/1994)

¶19

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

O.P.(FC)No.599 of 2022

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶24

The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.(G&W)No.294 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, which is one filed by the respondents herein-mother and maternal grandparents, seeking custody of a minor child, by name, Kalyani, who is aged 12 years. In that original petition, the Family Court granted Ext.P3 ad interim injunction in I.A.No.1 of 2022. The petitioner-father entered appearance and filed objection in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and counter in the original petition. Thereafter, the Family Court modified the ad interim injunction, by Ext.P6 order dated 24.06.2022, which reads thus;

¶25

“Both represented. Objection submitted to be filed. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that on the strength of injunction order, the child is not being permitted to have visitation right with the respondent. Hence, the order of temporary injunction is clarified to the effect that the said order shall not prevent the respondent from interacting with the child with prior notice to petitioners. Call on for hearing. Produce the child on 04.07.2022.

¶26

The respondents filed I.A.No.5 of 2022, invoking the

¶27

provisions under Section Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of

¶28

¶29

O.P.(FC)No.599 of 2022

¶30

Civil Procedure, 1908, to prosecute the petitioner-father, alleging violation of Ext.P6 order. In that interlocutory application, the respondent filed Ext.P9 objection. In that interlocutory application, the Family Court passed Ext.P8 order dated 16.09.2022, which reads thus;

¶31

“The counter petitioner has not filed objection so far. Hence, the statement of the 3^rd petitioner is taken. On considering that the statement and the affidavit filed on record, the further interaction of the respondent with the child is restrained till a decision is made in this petition. Call on for objection, if any, to 07.10.2022”

¶32

(underline supplied)

¶33

On 26.10.2022, when this original petition came up

¶34

for admission, this Court issued notice to the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out notice to the respondents through their counsel before the Family Court, Thiruvalla, where O.P.(G&W)No.294 of 2022 is pending consideration.

¶35

On 17.11.2022, when this original petition came up for consideration, the respondents entered appearance through counsel.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

The issue that arises for consideration in this

¶38

¶39

O.P.(FC)No.599 of 2022

¶40

original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P8 order dated 16.09.2022 of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.P.(G&W)No.294 of 2022.

¶41

The Family Court by Ext.P6 order dated 24.06.2022 modified Ext.P3 ad interim injunction, making it clear that the order of injunction will not prevent the petitioner-father from interacting with the child with prior notice to the respondents

¶42

herein. Alleging that the father has violated the said order, the mother filed I.A.No.5 of 2022 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code, which is pending consideration. It is during the pendency of that interlocutory application that the Family Court passed Ext.P8 order dated 16.09.2022, whereby, the father is restrained from further interaction with the minor child till a decision is taken in that interlocutory application.

¶43

In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan [(2020)

¶44

3 SCC 67] the Apex Court held that law is well settled by a catena of judgments that, while deciding matters of custody of a child, primary and paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. If the welfare of the child so demands then technical objections cannot come in the way. However, while deciding the welfare of the child it is not the view of one spouse alone

¶45

¶46

O.P.(FC)No.599 of 2022

¶47

which has to be taken into consideration. The courts should decide the issue of custody only on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child. The child is the victim in custody battles. In this fight of egos and increasing acrimonious battles and litigations between two spouses, more often than not, the parents who otherwise love their child, present a picture as if the other spouse is a villain and he or she alone is entitled to custody of the child. The court must therefore be very wary of what is said by each of the spouses.

¶48

In Yashita Sahu (supra) the Apex Court noticed that a child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, and protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation and every re-union may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what

¶49

¶50

O.P.(FC)No.599 of 2022

¶51

manner the custody of the child should be shared between both parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights. A child has a human right to have the love and affection of both parents and courts must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of her/his parents.

¶52

Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, we find no reason to sustain the total prohibition imposed in Ext.P8 order against the father from interacting with the minor child. He can be permitted to interact with the minor child over phone between 7.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. for 10 to 15 minutes, on Monday, Wednesday

¶53

¶54

O.P.(FC)No.599 of 2022

¶55

and Friday, during the pendency of I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.P.(G&W)No.294 of 2022. It is brought to the notice of this Court that I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.P.(G&W)No.294 of 2022, now stands posted to 07.12.2022, for consideration.

¶56

In such circumstances, this original petition is disposed of, modifying the Ext.P8 order to the effect indicated above.

¶57

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the rival contentions made by the parties, which has to be dealt with by the Family Court while passing orders

¶58

in I.A.No.5 of 2022.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶63

MIN

¶64

¶65

O.P.(FC)No.599 of 2022

¶66

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 599/2022

¶67

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶68

Exhibit P 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OP (G&W) NO
294/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT THIRUVALLA
DATED 06.06.2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO 1/2022 IN OP
(G&W) NO 294/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT
THIRUVALLA
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14.06.2022 IN IA NO 1/2022 IN OP (G&W)
NO 294/2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
DATED 24.6.2022 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT BELOW
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
24.6.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
24.06.2022 IN IA NO 1/2022 IN OP (G&W)
NO 294/2022
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO 5/2022 IN OP
(G&W) NO 294/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT THIRUVALLA
Exhibit P8 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
25.09.2022 IN IA NO 5/2022 IN OP (G&W)
NO 294/2022
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT BELOW

Anoop Chandran v. Divya R.Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Chandran v. Divya R.Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasiq Vs Nejmu

A.Damodaran Namboothiri Vs Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board

Happy Maxwell Vs Mazwell M. Chennur

Elizuba Ammu Philip Vs Jinu Thomas

Sajeev, Vs the State of Kerala

Amit Panikulam Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder Donny Panikulam Vs Chris Babu Abraham @ Babu a. Kallivayalil