High CourtsSingle Bench

Savin Panattu Sudhakaran vs Greeshma Gangadharan

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 8 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 KL CK 0106

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J · Dr Kauser Edappagath, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
MAT.Appeal No. 164 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

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

20 paragraphs · 361 words

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

1.

This appeal arises from an application filed before the Family Court, Thrissur, by the appellant to modify the compromise decree for custody in

G.O.P No. 1482 of 2018.

2.  As per the compromise decree, the permanent custody of the minor child is with the respondent-mother. Father is entitled for interim custody

of the child on every second and fourth Saturday between 10 am to 5 pm. The venue of exchange of the child was fixed at the residence of the

respondent-mother. This compromise decree was passed on 25.06.2020.

3.  It is stated in the compromise decree itself that the interim custody shall be handed over as and when the restrictions imposed by the

Government in connection with Covid-19 is withdrawn.

4.  Since, the custody of the child was not given, the  appellant  approached  the  Family  court  with  an

interlocutory application. Taking note of the restrictions imposed by the Government in connection with pandemic, the Family Court did not allow the

custody of the child to the father as per the compromise decree. The appellant also appears to have sought custody for a continuous period of 12 days,

that was also declined. The Family Court, however, permitted the appellant to interact with the child on every Sunday between 6 pm to 7pm through

video call. Challenging this, this appeal was preferred.

5.  We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent.

6.  Having adverted to the present circumstances, we are of the view that there is no impediment for the respondent in giving custody of the child

to the father as per the compromise decree. The Family Court ought to have safeguarded the decree passed based on the compromise in the

impugned order.

7.  In such circumstances, we are of the view that custody of the child shall be given to the appellant-father as per the compromise decree. The

appeal is allowed to the extent as above.

The parties are directed to comply with the compromise decree in regard to the custody until it is varied in accordance with law. No costs.