✦ Kerala High Court

EBY CHERIAN v. JEREMA JOHN

O.P.(FC) No. 168 of 2024AMIT RAWAL MRS C S SUDHA, AMIT RAWAL C S SUDHA4 min read

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. The family court by Ext.P9 ordered thus - “4. As per order in I.A.2/2023 and 4/2023 overnight custody was granted to the petitioner during September, 2023. As per the said order it was observed that the petitioner may move necessary application for getting overnight…

Judgment

respondent in the O.P. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the Original Petition.

2.

O.P.No.1085/2023 was filed by the petitioner/father seeking permanent custody of his minor daughter aged six years, from the custody of the respondent/mother. The petitioner moved I.A.No.12/2024 seeking interim custody of the minor child during summer vacation from 24/03/2024 to 30/04/2024. According to the petitioner/father, he is working abroad and he is coming down on leave for the sole purpose of being in the company of his minor child.

3.

The respondent/mother objected to the petition contending that O.P.(FC) No.168 of 2024 3 the minor child is only 6 years old and so it would be traumatizing for the child to be separated from the mother for a continuous period of 36 days. It was also contended that the annual examination of the child would be over by 26/03/2024 only. The respondent/mother conceded to granting interim custody on alternate weeks during the summer vacation.

4.

The family court granted interim custody of the minor child to the petitioner/father from 10:00 am on 28/03/2024 till 4:00 pm on 05/04/2024 and thereafter from 10:00 am on 14/04/2024 till 4:00 pm on 21/04/2024. The petitioner/father aggrieved by the aforesaid order, is before us.

5.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the child is comfortable with the father, the family court has wrongly curtailed the period of custody sought for by the petitioner, which is unjustified and hence seeks custody of the child for the entire period of summer vacation. This is opposed by the respondent/mother who contends that taking into account the tender age of the child, a separation for the entire period of vacation would not be conducive and therefore the period of custody granted by the family court is quite appropriate and calls for no interference.

6.

Heard both sides. O.P.(FC) No.168 of 2024 4

7.

The family court by Ext.P9 ordered thus - “4. As per order in I.A.2/2023 and 4/2023 overnight custody was granted to the petitioner during September, 2023. As per the said order it was observed that the petitioner may move necessary application for getting overnight custody as and when he is available in the native place. Subsequently, during Christmas vacation and also in the first week of February, overnight custody of the child was given to the petitioner. However, the petitioner's prayer for getting custody for a period of 36 days does not appear to be a conducive one considering the age of the minor. The time table issued from the school has been produced by the respondent and it shows that summer holidays will commence on 27/03/2024. The child will be having open house at school on 06/04/2024. So considering these aspects, I am of the view that custody for two weeks can be granted to the petitioner on alternative weeks during the summer vacation.

In the result, the petitioner is allowed to have interim custody of the child from 10 am on 28/03/2024 till 4 pm on 05/04/2024 and thereafter from 10 am on 14/04/2024 till 4 pm on 21/04/2024.” Taking into account the age of the child, we do not find any infirmity in Ext.P9 order calling for an interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed. O.P.(FC) No.168 of 2024 5 Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- C.S.SUDHA JUDGE ami/ O.P.(FC) No.168 of 2024 6 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 168/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM AS O.P NO: 1085/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.P NO: 1085/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A NO: 2/2023 & I.A NO: 4/2023 DATED 21/9/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM CUSTODY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS I.A NO: 12/2024 IN O.P NO: 1085/2023 ON 1/1/2024 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A NO: 12/2024 IN O.P NO: TRUE COPY OF THE TIMETABLE PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR EXAMINATIONS OF TOC H. PUBLIC SCHOOL, VYTTILA THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER'S FATHER ISSUED BY KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P NO: 83/2024 DATED 9/2/2024 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A NO: 12/2024 IN O.P NO: 1085/2023 DATED 17/2/2024 BY THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Kerala High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. O.P.(FC) No. 168 of 2024). ← Search more judgments