Chinnu Darwin vs Feialoh Francis P

C.Pratheep Kumar, J.

This is a petition filed by a wife against her husband who are fighting before the Family Court, Ernakulam, for the custody of their only son aged 4½ years, born on 12.8.2019. The husband filed Ext.P1 GOP No.2799/2021 before the Family Court, claiming permanent custody of the child. Along with the OP, he filed Ext.P2 application for interim custody of the child to which the wife filed Ext.P3 counter affidavit. As per Ext.P4 interim order dated 26.4.2022, the learned Family Court Judge permitted the husband to see the child at the premises of the Family Court on the first and last Sundays, between 3.00 to 4.00 pm till the disposal of the OP.

As per Ext.P5 application, the husband reported before the Family Court that the wife had willfully disobeyed Ext.P4 order and not permitting him to see the child and praying for taking appropriate action against the wife for violation of Ext.P4 order. The wife filed Ext.P6 counter affidavit against Ext.P5 application. After hearing both sides, the Family Court passed Ext.P7 order holding that the husband is entitled to have free interaction with the child during the period provided in Ext.P4 order. The Family Court further clarified that during the said period of interaction, if the child so prefers, the petitioner (husband) can take the child outside the Court premises, including the nearby park and directed the wife to comply with the above order in letter and spirit. Ext.P7 warns the wife of penal actions in case the order is not complied with. It was in the above context that the wife approached this Court praying for quashing Ext.P7 order, by invoking the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P7 order was passed by the Family Court without conducting necessary enquiry and without hearing the wife. He also claimed that the wife has not violated Ext.P4 order.

As per Ext.P4 order, the Family Court has granted custody of the minor child only for one hour each on first and last Sundays between 3.00 to 4.00 pm. During the entire remaining period, the child is in the custody of its mother. The grievance of the father is that even during the said limited period, he was not permitted to freely interact with the child. It was in the above context, taking into consideration of all aspects including the counter affidavit filed by the wife, that the Family Court Judge permitted the father of the child to interact with the child freely during the said limited time.

The only modification made in Ext.P7 order is that it permitted the father to take the child to the nearby park. We find absolutely no reason or justification for the wife to object to Ext.P7 order, which only permits the father to take the child to the nearby park and directing her to comply Ext.P4 order. The practice of approaching the High Court seeking invocation of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on such silly grounds, especially in the case of custody of minor children, is unfortunate. There is absolutely no merits or bona fides in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

In this context it is also to be noted that the child is of 41/2 years at present. Ext.P4 order was passed by the Family Court on 26.4.2022 when the child was 21/2 years old. The child requires care, love and affection of both the parents. Therefore, it is high time to give the father more time to interact with the child. In case the father approaches the Family Court for enhancing the time for interaction with the child, the same shall be considered liberally by the Family court.

With the above observation, we dismiss this Original Petition.