Dismissed

Muhammed Yasir v. Dr.Faheema Hassan

Kerala HC20 Feb 2023Mat.Appeal/1306/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a Family Court order refusing permanent custody of a 13-year-old daughter to the father. The Court held that since the children reside happily with the mother in the USA for their education and the child's welfare was best served with the mother, the custodial arrangement was correct.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merits; the Family Court's order refusing custody to the appellant was upheld.

Muhammed Yasir Vs Dr.Faheema Hassan — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶3

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

MAT.APPEAL NO. 1306 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2015 IN O.P.NO.735 OF 2013 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

MUHAMMED YASIR AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.T.K.KUNHIMOIDU, POOKKAYIL BAZAR,NADUVILANGADY, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SRI.S.KANNAN SMT.M.SHAJNA SMT.UMMUL FIDA

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

DR.FAHEEMA HASSAN AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.HASSAN, FABEES, ERANJIKKAL, ELATHUR AMSOMDESOM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 303.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA SRI.SAJU RAGHAVAN

¶13

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 20.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

Mat.Appeal No.1306 of 2015

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

¶18

O.P.No.735 of 2019 was filed before the Family Court, Kozhikode by the appellant seeking custody of his children, who are now with the respondent. That petition was dismissed. Challenging that judgment, this appeal was filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶19

The appellant is the father and respondent is the mother of three children, Nidal, Naba and Niya, born on 17.03.1999, 29.04.2002 and 01.07.2010 respectively. Their marriage was dissolved. The children are in the United States of America along with the respondent. The appellant is working in Qatar. The appellant has filed the original petition claiming permanent custody of the children. It was alleged that the respondent was not being given any opportunity to interact with the children even.

¶20

The respondent resisted the petition by contending that the appellant did not want the custody of the children and not with any bona fides, he has filed the original petition.

¶21

¶22

Mat.Appeal No.1306 of 2015

¶23

There were other litigations also between the parties. In fact, the petitioner had an illicit relationship with another lady. He used to torture the respondent also. The children are taken to the U.S.A. along with her and they are staying with her happily. For the welfare of the children, they have to live along with the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent sought to dismiss O.P.No.735 of 2013.

¶24

This original petition was tried jointly with O.P.No.194 of 2014, which was filed by the appellant seeking a decree to cancel a document. PWs.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the appellant and RW1, the 1^st respondent, was examined on the side of the respondents. Exts.A1 to A15 series and Exts.B1 to B19 were marked. The Family Court after considering the said evidence dismissed both the petitions.

¶25

Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel appeared on instructions for the respondents.

¶26

¶27

Mat.Appeal No.1306 of 2015

¶28

The appellant and the 2^nd respondent have three children. Two elder children already attained the majority. The third child is aged only 13 years now. She is now residing along with the respondent in the U.S.A. The Family Court narrated the circumstances which occurred during the pendency of O.P.No.735 of 2013. The Family Court could not ascertain the will and wish of the children, since the appellant did not take steps to bring the children to the court from the U.S.A., where they are living now. The younger child admittedly has been studying in the U.S.A. There is nothing on record to show that there has been any difficulty or inconvenience for the child, who lives along with the respondent-mother, and to pursue her studies. The claim of the appellant is to get permanent custody of the children.

¶29

Considering all the aspects of the matter, particularly the welfare of the child, we are of the view that the Family Court rightly refused to grant the appellant custody of the child. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding also.

¶30

¶31

Mat.Appeal No.1306 of 2015

¶32

Hence the appeal is without merits and liable only to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶35

Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶36

dkr

Muhammed Yasir v. Dr.Faheema Hassan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Yasir v. Dr.Faheema Hassan

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

Binu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Rajalekshmi P Vs State of Kerala

Raheez Nizar Vs Fathima Iqbal

Anoop S. Ayyappan Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Hazeena Vs Faizaludheen

Sareena Vs Haseena S