IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 373 of 2008() ---------------------------- OP.1515/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- C.V. MANOJ, S/O C.S. VAIDYANATHAN, NO.4TH, RAMASWAMY LAYOUT, VENKATTAPURAM POST, COIMBATORE - 641 025. TAMILNADU STATE. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- VIDHYA, D/O N. RAMAN, 23/44 EL DARODA, PALLIPURAM POST, PALAKKAD TALUK, AND DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Mat.A.No.373 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This appeal is directed against an order dismissing an application for custody filed by the appellant/husband/father against the respondent/wife/mother. The dispute is about the custody of Shreya, a female child born on 16.3.1999. The child is now in the custody of the respondent/mother. The appellant/father wanted the child to be handed over to his custody. The claim was resisted. The rival contestants, i.e., father and mother of the child examined themselves as PW1 and RW1. Except the birth certificate of the child Exhibit A1, no other documents were produced. 2. The court below in the circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that custody of the minor child by the respondent/mother need not be disturbed. However, the court directed that father/appellant shall have opportunity to keep the child in his custody and to interact with the child on all week ends of second Saturdays. It was also directed that for three days Mat.A.No.373/08 -2- each during Onam and Christmas vacations, the father shall be entitled to have the custody of the child. For 15 days during the summer vacation also it was held that the father/appellant shall be entitled to have the custody of the child. 3. By a separate common judgment in Mat.Appeal Nos.331/08 and 351/08, this Court has directed dissolution of the marriage between the spouses. Arguments have been advanced before us. The learned counsel for the appellant only submits that the father may be permitted to have greater opportunity to interact with the child. The present arrangement is too insufficient that the father does not get a reasonable time to be with his daughter. Even according to the respondent/mother, there is no particular disqualification for the father and it is perfectly justified to permit him to have greater interactions with the child, contends counsel for the appellant. But the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the frequency of such interactions need not be increased at the moment. Mat.A.No.373/08 -3- 4. We had discussions between the counsel. We interacted with the parties in the Chamber. The parties could not settle their disputes. After hearing the counsel at length, we are satisfied that greater opportunity can be granted to the appellant/father to interact with the child during summer vacations. All other stipulations in the impugned order can be left undisturbed. But, we are satisfied that the appellant/husband can be permitted to interact with the child for a greater length of time during the summer vacation. We take note of the fact that the child will be with the mother all through except on the week ends of 2nd Saturdays and three days each during Onam and Christmas vacations. There is no contention that the child is not talking easily to her father. Paternal grandparents are also there. We are in these circumstances satisfied that this appeal can be allowed to the limited extent of increasing the number of days of custody by the appellant/father during summer vacation from 15 days to 25 days. 5. The court below has not specified which half of the vacation, the appellant can have custody of the child during the Mat.A.No.373/08 -4- three vacations. The parents of the child are educated persons with respectability and we do hope that they will be able to work out these stipulations harmoniously and it is not necessary for the Court to prescribe the days of the vacations during which the appellant/father can have custody of the child. We make it clear that custody must be given in such a manner that the educational prospects of the child are not disturbed. Parties must work out the directions issued subject to this modification and if they have any problem in working out the arrangement, they can seek the assistance of the Family Court to issue more specific and definite directions regarding the days of custody during the vacation. We make it clear that the respondent/wife has to prepare the child to go with the father without any difficulty and if she is not able to do the same, it will have to be assumed by the Court that she has no beneficial and wholesome control over the child. We reiterate that it shall be the burden of the respondent/mother to ensure that the child follows these stipulations regarding the custody healthily and without any resistance and demur. Mat.A.No.373/08 -5- 6. The execution of this order and for later modifications etc. the parties can approach the Family Court and the Family Court shall pass appropriate orders on merits. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn