Sholy George v. Ashwin Mathew

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 25TH ASWINA, 1944 O.P.(FC) NO. 591 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2022 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2022 IN O.P.(G&W) NO.264 OF 2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA PETITIONER:** **SHOLY GEORGE AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. GEORGE, POLLAYIL HOUSE, KANGAZHA P. O., CHANGANASERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686011.** **BY ADVS. P.LAKSHMI BABU KARUKAPADATH M.A.VAHEEDA BABU P.U.VINOD KUMAR ARYA RAGHUNATH VAISAKHI V. T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ AJWIN P LALSON KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU AYSHA E.M.** ## **RESPONDENT:** **ASHWIN MATHEW** **AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KANDATHIL PAUL MATHEW, JIVA TAUVA, ABOVE AMAZON HOLIDAY RESORTS, NEAR HP PETROL PUMP, BODIMETTU ROAD, POOPARA, IDUKKI, PIN – 685619.** **SRI S.S.ARAVIND- FOR RESPONDENT** 2 ## O.P.(FC) No.591 of 2022 **THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 O.P.(FC) No.591 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Ajithkumar, J. The petitioner has filed O.P.(G&W) No.264 of 2021 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla claiming permanent custody of her minor son Anand Mathew, aged 13½ years. The respondent, who is the father, filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 in that O.P. seeking interim custody of the child. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 claiming interim custody, which was disposed of by the Family Court as per order dated 20.07.2022. The respondent was allowed to interact with the child on every first Saturday from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. The petitioner challenges the said order in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Today, when this matter came up for admission, the respondent entered appearance through his learned counsel. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Ext.P5 is the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 of the Family Court in I.A.No.2 of 2022. As per Ext.P5, the 4 ## O.P.(FC) No.591 of 2022 respondent father was permitted to interact with the child on every first Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon. The petitioner would contend that the respondent is suffering from bi-polar disorder and he is prone to uncontrollable emotions and behavioural variations. Therefore, handing over custody of the child to him may expose the child to mental stress. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that if at all the permission for interaction is given, it shall be under the supervision of a responsible officer of the court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the apprehension aired by the petitioner is totally unfounded and the respondent has every right to interact with his son. The learned counsel also would submit that there would not be any such issue as the petitioner apprehends, and therefore there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In **Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan [(2020)** **3 SCC 67]** the Apex Court held that law is well settled by a 5 ## O.P.(FC) No.591 of 2022 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 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. 7. 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 6 ## O.P.(FC) No.591 of 2022 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 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 7 ## O.P.(FC) No.591 of 2022 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. 8. No doubt, the paramount consideration while deciding the custody of the child is the welfare and best interest of the child. If the child would be exposed to any unnecessary psychological or other kind of stress, his custody cannot be given to a troublesome spouse, only for the reason that he or she has right to have such custody. Here, the respondent was allowed to interact with the child once in a month for two hours in the premises of the court. We do not think that the said right can be denied to the respondent. However, in the light of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the respondent may have mood changes on account of the infirmity he is suffering from, it may be 8 ## O.P.(FC) No.591 of 2022 appropriate to direct that such interaction shall be under the supervision of the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Family Court, Thiruvalla or a staff member of the court authorised for the purpose by the Chief Ministerial Officer. This Original Petition is accordingly disposed of by modifying the impugned order to the above extent. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 9 O.P.(FC) No.591 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 591/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. (G&W) NO. 264/2021 FOR THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD FILED BY THE RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF I. A. NO. 2/2022 IN O.P.(G&W) NO. 264/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I. A. NO. 2/2022 IN O.P. (G&W) NO. 264/2021, MISTAKENLY SHOWN AS I.A. NO. 1/2022** **Exhibit P4** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS IN O.P. (G&W) NO. 264/2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT DOWNLOADED FROM E- COURTS** - **Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/07/2022 IN I. A. NO. 2/2022 IN O.P. (G&W) NO. 264/2021** - **Exhibit P6** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PARTS OF WATSAPP MESSAGE SENT BY THE RESPONDENT FROM HIS MOBILE NUMBER 9920098402 TO THE MOBILE PHONE OF THE PETITIONER**