High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDisposed of

Thankachan and Dolly Thankachan v. Ramees

Case / Petition Number:O.P.(FC) No.156 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anil K. Narendran
  • P.G. Ajithkumar
Judgment Date
2023-04-10
Court Decision / Holding
This Original Petition is disposed of by modifying Ext.P12 order; interim custody of the children is granted to the petitioners from 17.04.2023 to 23.04.2023 and from 14.05.2023 to 21.05.2023, each day from 10:00 a.m. at the residence of the respondent and return by 4:00 p.m. After vacation, custody of the children shall be governed by Ext.P12; petitioners may approach the Family Court for any modification.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Thankachan
  • Dolly Thankachan

Respondents

  • Ramees

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Gopakumar R. Thaliyal
  • • C.M. Emmanuel
  • • R.B. Balachandran

Counsels for Respondents

  • • R. Sunil Kumar
  • • A. Salini Lal

Case Synopsis & Summary

Three minor children, aged 9, 7 and 6, are at the heart of this Original Petition (Family Court) filed by their maternal grandparents seeking custody. After the death of their mother on 02.09.2021, the petitioners, who raised the children, claim custody rights and challenge a Family Court order that granted limited interaction to the petitioners while the respondent seeks legal guardianship and permanent custody in O.P.2377 of 2021. The Family Court's Ext.P12 order, dated 16.03.2023, permitted only restricted interaction on Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. The petitioners moved I.A.7/2023 for interim custody, and I.A.5/2022 seeking passport impounding; the court heard arguments on 10.04.2023 and the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was entertained. The petitioner’s counsel urged that the welfare of the children should prevail and that, given the mother's untimely death, the grandparents deserve extended interaction and custody to ensure continuity and stability. The respondent contends that the petitioners are not fit to care for the children, citing alleged mental derangement of the first petitioner and risk to the welfare of the children. Citing Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2022 SC 3511), the court reiterates that the welfare of the child is paramount and that the best interests must guide custody decisions. The court modifies Ext.P12 to grant interim custody for specified dates during summer vacation, with custody times and return obligations, and retains authority to modify later if necessary.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Welfare of the child paramount consideration
  • Best interests of the child
  • Distinction between the wish/desire of the child and what would be in its best interest

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend custody of the three minor children should be entrusted to them as guardians and caretakers, noting the mother’s suicide and that the respondent forcibly retained guardianship; they argue there is no disqualification on their suitability; they rely on the welfare principle from Rohith Thammana Gowda to support ongoing interaction and extended custody during vacation. They seek interim custody via I.A.7/2023 and urge modification of Ext.P12 to provide longer custody and more access during summer vacation, arguing the children's welfare requires stability and continued care by grandparents.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent opposes granting extended custody to the petitioners, arguing that the petitioners are incapable of ensuring the children's welfare; there is alleged mental incapacity of the first petitioner; the court should determine custody on the best interests standard and not merely sentiment, considering the child's safety and welfare; the Family Court's earlier order was appropriate, pending final determination.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka & othersAIR 2022 SC 3511PositiveApex Court reiterated welfare of the child as the paramount consideration in custody matters and guided the balance between child's wishes and best interests; the Kerala High Court relies on this principle to modify custody.
W.P (CRL) NO. 867/2022W.P (CRL) No. 867/2022Mentioned OnlyExhibit P8 contains a judgment from this court; it is cited but not discussed in the judgment's reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Thankachan and Dolly Thankachan v. Ramees and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **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 10[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1945 O.P.(FC) NO. 156 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2023 IN I.A.NOS.7 OF 2023 AND I.A.NO.5 OF 2022 IN O.P.NO.2377 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 THANKACHAN AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. KOMALEYOSE, FREEDA BHAVANAM, SHANGHUMUGHAM, BEACH (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695007. 2 DOLLY THANKACHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, BUSINESS, W/O. THANKACHAN, FREEDA BHAVANAM, SHANGHUMUGHAM, BEACH (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695007** **BY ADVS. GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL C.M.EMMANUEL R.B.BALACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT:** ## **RAMEES,** **AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHUMAN, MADAM VILAKAM, PULLOORKONAM, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABDUL RAHUMAN, MADAM VILAKAM, PULLOORKONAM, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695523, PIN – 695523.** 2 O.P.(FC) No.156 of 2023 **BY ADVS. R.SUNIL KUMAR A.SALINI LAL** **THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 O.P.(FC) No.156 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** ## P.G. Ajithkumar, J. The petitioners are the maternal grandparents of three minor children, who are aged 9, 7 and 6 years. Their mother committed suicide on 02.09.2021. The children are in the custody of the petitioners. The respondent has filed O.P.No.2377 of 2021 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking a decree declaring him the legal guardian of the children and allowing him the permanent custody. The petitioners filed I.A.No.7 of 2023 seeking interim custody of the children. They also fled I.A.No.5 of 2022 for impounding the passport of the respondent. The Family Court vide Ext.P12 order dismissed I.A.No.5 of 2022 and allowed the petitioners to have interaction with the children from 10.00 a.m. till 1.00 p.m. on every second Saturday. The petitioners challenge the order in I.A.No.7 of 2023 in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 O.P.(FC) No.156 of 2023 2. On 29.03.2023, notice by Special Messenger was ordered to be served on the respondent. On receipt of the notice, 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. The petitioners set forth several contentions and allegations in support of their claim that custody of the children shall be entrusted with them. They claim that the children were with them and after getting their custody forcibly, the respondent instituted O.P.No.2377 of 2023. They have an allegation that the respondent is responsible for the death of Smt.Sandra, the mother of the children. The respondent refutes all such allegations and he contends that the petitioners are incapable of taking care of the welfare of the children. It is contended that the 1st petitioner had mental derangement and therefore entrusting of the children with the petitioners is unsafe. 5 O.P.(FC) No.156 of 2023 ## 5. In **Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of** **Karnataka & others [AIR 2022 SC 3511]** the Apex Court reiterated the law that the welfare of the children is of paramount consideration in an enquiry regarding custody of children. The Apex Court also explained as to how far desire of the child has to be given importance. It was held as follows: “8. At the outset we may state that in a matter involving the question of custody of a child it has to be borne in mind that the question ‘what is the wish/desire of the child’ is different and distinct from the question ‘what would be in the best interest of the ’ child . Certainly, the wish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’ is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances. When couples are at loggerheads and wanted to part their ways as parthian shot they may level extreme allegations against each other so as to depict the other unworthy to have the custody of the child. In the circumstances, we are of the view that for considering the claim for custody of a minor child, unless very serious, proven conduct which should make one of them unworthy to 6 O.P.(FC) No.156 of 2023 claim for custody of the child concerned, the question can and shall be decided solely looking into the question as to, ‘what would be the best interest of the child concerned’. In other words, welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration. In that view of the matter we think it absolutely unnecessary to discuss and deal with all the contentions and allegations in their respective pleadings and affidavits.” (underline supplied) 6. Although the respondent raised a contention that the 1st petitioner has mental disableness, there is nothing on record to probabilise the same. As held in the aforementioned decision, it is unnecessary to discuss all the contentions and allegations in the respective pleadings of the parties. When the mother of the children is no more, the maternal grandparents shall be allowed to interact with the children, it is especially so when their daughter committed suicide at an young age, leaving behind three children of tender age. There is no visible disqualification for the petitioners to be in custody of the children. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Family Court ought to have given the children in the custody of the petitioners for more duration. Order of the 7 O.P.(FC) No.156 of 2023 Family Court dated 16.03.2023 in I.A.No.7 of 2023 (Ext.P12), is therefore liable to be modified. Now, it is summer vacation. Children can be given in the custody of the petitioners for more duration without affecting their studies. Accordingly, this Original Petition is disposed of by modifying Ext.P12 order to the extent that interim custody of the children shall be given to the petitioners from 17.04.2023 to 23.04.2023 and from 14.05.2023 till 21.05.2023. The petitioners shall get custody of the child at 10.00 a.m. from the residence of the respondent and drop back at 4.00 p.m. at the residence of the respondent. After the period of vacation, the custody of the children shall be governed by Ext.P12 order and the petitioners can approach the Family Court if any modification to the same is desired. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 8 O.P.(FC) No.156 of 2023 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 156/2023** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE DATED 25.07.2013.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02.01.2017 SUBMITTED TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMEN'S POLICE STATION, CANTONMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **EXHIBIT P3** - **TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.01.2017 SUBMITTED TO THE STATE WOMEN'S COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **EXHIBIT P4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, NSS PUBLIC SCHOOL, PERUMTHANNI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **EXHIBIT P5** - **TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P NO. 2377/2021 ALONG WITH IA NO.1/2021 DATED 12.10.2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXHIBIT P6** - **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.08.2022 ISSUED FROM THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.09.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE S.H.O, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBOLE COURT IN W.P (CRL) NO. 867/2022.** 9 O.P.(FC) No.156 of 2023 **EXHIBIT P9** **TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.10.2022.** **EXHIBIT P10** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2022 IN I.A NO. 06/2022 IN O.P. NO. 2377/2021 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DATED 11.01.2023 IN I.A NO. 7/2023 IN O.P. NO. 2377/2021.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16.03.2023 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN I.A NO. 7/2023 AND I.A NO. 5/2022 IN O.P. NO. 2377/2021.**