AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 283 wordsP.B.Suresh Kumar, J
Ext.P7 order, in terms of which the Family Court, Kunnamkulam granted interim custody of the male child of the petitioner, aged 6 years to the first respondent, the father of the child for seven days from 10.00 a.m. on 20.12.2024 to 5.00 p.m. on 26.12.2024, is under challenge in this original petition.
It is seen that the first respondent who is working abroad is back in India till 05.01.2025, and the school of the child which is closed now would re-open only on 26.12.2024. It is taking note of the said facts that the impugned order has been passed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the child is reluctant to go with his father and that therefore the Family Court, in the circumstances, ought not have given overnight custody to the father.
On a query from the court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the custody of the child has not been given since the petitioner intended to challenge the order.
The reluctance of the child to go with a parent cannot be a consideration in matters of this nature, for the child needs the care and protection of both parents. That apart, it is seen from the materials that there is a function in the family of the first respondent in connection with the marriage of his younger brother on 26.12.2024. It is seen that it is one of the reasons stated in the application for seeking interim custody of the child for the said period. In the above facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The original petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed.