BY AD vs V.K.BALACHANDRAN

Sri.V.K.Balachandran-appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the original petition, namely O.P.(G&W)No.626 of 2019, was disposed of finally by the learned Family Court through Ext.P1(a) order; and that, after it was confirmed in appeal and though various other proceedings against it were initiated, she filed the above applications seeking a modification of the same on the ground that the children were unwilling to go to the father, or to his parents-as the case may be, on account of various factors. He explained OP(FC) No.146 of 2025 4 that the children are facing deep humiliation at the hands of the paternal uncle and that their father is living a wayward life, which would morally injure them. He explained that it was hence, that his client was constrained to move the learned Family Court for modification through Ext.P5, so as to confine their custody in favour of the father during day time and not overnight.

3. However, in refutation, Sri.Shyam Padman, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Laya Mary Joseph-appearing for the respondent, submitted that only two reasons were cited by the petitioner in seeking modification of Ext.P7, which are reflected in paragraph 18 of the judgment. He argued that the said reasons are untenable because, the children are happy to live with their father and his parents; and further that the allegation that they are being brainwashed by their paternal uncle, is OP(FC) No.146 of 2025 5 factually incorrect and without any basis. He asserted that his client is also equally responsible and interested in the welfare of the children; and that whenever he is in their company, he makes sure that they are happy.

4. We have examined Ext.P7, which is the impugned order and notice that the learned Family Court has considered each of the allegations impelled by the parties, in great detail.

5. We must also record that the parties had earlier approached this Court, with the respondent challenging Ext.P2 and seeking interim custody rights over the children; but which had been confirmed even by the Honourable Supreme Court.

6. Therefore, as matters now stand, Ext.P1(a) is in force; and we notice that it only allows the father to have interim custody of the child on certain Saturdays and Sundays, as also during the OP(FC) No.146 of 2025 6 holidays and summer vacation.

7. We have no doubt-as an abstract proposition-that every child deserves equal attention and care from their parents and that it is their rights, which would stand violated if it is denied.

8. In the present case, the parties may be at discord, but they cannot run that into their relationship as parents of the children. If they do so, it is the future of the children which would be imperiled. We cannot allow this while we act under the parens patriae jurisdiction.

9. We notice that the specific case of the petitioner, as asserted by Sri.V.K.Balachandran, is that her children are unwilling to go to their father. We do not see why an application for modification of Ext.P1(a) should have been filed with such an imputation because, none of the orders OP(FC) No.146 of 2025 7 mandate that the father can take the children into custody using force or against their wishes.

10. At the moment, we do not see any input on record which would indicate that the children are showing any reluctance, or that they are refusing to act as per the orders of the court-which arrangement we affirm was designed in their best interests and for them to grow as worthy citizens in future. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Family Court; and consequently, we dismiss this original petition. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA,JUDGE Scl/ OP(FC) No.146 of 2025 8 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 146/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. (GW) NO.626/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED NIL Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2024 IN OP (G&W) NO.626/2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MAT APPEAL NO.539/2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 27.07.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP (C) NO.21171/2024 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 17.9.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP NO.1194/2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.258/2024 IN O.P. (G&W) NO.626/2019 DATED 23.8.2024 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A. NO.258/2024 IN O.P. (G&W) NO.626/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18.12.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 3.1.2025 IN I.A. NOS.258/2024 & 364/2024 IN O.P. NO.626/2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Sri.V.K.Balachandran-appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the original petition, namely O.P.(G&W)No.626 of 2019, was disposed of finally by the learned Family Court through Ext.P1(a) order; and that, after it was confirmed in appeal and though various other proceedings against it were initiated, she filed the above applications seeking a modification of the same on the ground that the children were unwilling to go to the father, or to his parents-as the case may be, on account of various factors. He explained OP(FC) No.146 of 2025 4 that the children are facing deep humiliation at the hands of the paternal uncle and that their father is living a wayward life, which would morally injure them. He explained that it was hence, that his client was constrained to move the learned Family Court for modification through Ext.P5, so as to confine their custody in favour of the father during day time and not overnight.

3. However, in refutation, Sri.Shyam Padman, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Laya Mary Joseph-appearing for the respondent, submitted that only two reasons were cited by the petitioner in seeking modification of Ext.P7, which are reflected in paragraph 18 of the judgment. He argued that the said reasons are untenable because, the children are happy to live with their father and his parents; and further that the allegation that they are being brainwashed by their paternal uncle, is OP(FC) No.146 of 2025 5 factually incorrect and without any basis. He asserted that his client is also equally responsible and interested in the welfare of the children; and that whenever he is in their company, he makes sure that they are happy.

4. We have examined Ext.P7, which is the impugned order and notice that the learned Family Court has considered each of the allegations impelled by the parties, in great detail.

5. We must also record that the parties had earlier approached this Court, with the respondent challenging Ext.P2 and seeking interim custody rights over the children; but which had been confirmed even by the Honourable Supreme Court.

6. Therefore, as matters now stand, Ext.P1(a) is in force; and we notice that it only allows the father to have interim custody of the child on certain Saturdays and Sundays, as also during the OP(FC) No.146 of 2025 6 holidays and summer vacation.

7. We have no doubt-as an abstract proposition-that every child deserves equal attention and care from their parents and that it is their rights, which would stand violated if it is denied.

8. In the present case, the parties may be at discord, but they cannot run that into their relationship as parents of the children. If they do so, it is the future of the children which would be imperiled. We cannot allow this while we act under the parens patriae jurisdiction.

9. We notice that the specific case of the petitioner, as asserted by Sri.V.K.Balachandran, is that her children are unwilling to go to their father. We do not see why an application for modification of Ext.P1(a) should have been filed with such an imputation because, none of the orders OP(FC) No.146 of 2025 7 mandate that the father can take the children into custody using force or against their wishes.

10. At the moment, we do not see any input on record which would indicate that the children are showing any reluctance, or that they are refusing to act as per the orders of the court-which arrangement we affirm was designed in their best interests and for them to grow as worthy citizens in future. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Family Court; and consequently, we dismiss this original petition. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA,JUDGE Scl/ OP(FC) No.146 of 2025 8 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 146/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. (GW) NO.626/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED NIL Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2024 IN OP (G&W) NO.626/2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MAT APPEAL NO.539/2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 27.07.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP (C) NO.21171/2024 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 17.9.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP NO.1194/2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.258/2024 IN O.P. (G&W) NO.626/2019 DATED 23.8.2024 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A. NO.258/2024 IN O.P. (G&W) NO.626/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18.12.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 3.1.2025 IN I.A. NOS.258/2024 & 364/2024 IN O.P. NO.626/2019 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM