IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 334 of 2009-F ---------------------------- OP.401/2008 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- VINESH MOHAN,AGED 29 YEARS, SON OF K.MOHAN NAIR, SREE LAKSHMI, PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR,LOURDHPURAM, THRISSUR-5. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT/: RESPONDENT -------------------------- SOUMYA,AGED 23 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF V.SURENDRAN,VELIYANKATTU HOUSE, CHAKYARKADAVU,P.O.KODANNUR,THRISSUR, NOW RESIDING AT AL-FERDOUS TYRES, P.B.NO.4701,RAISAL KHAIMA,UAE. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== MAT APPEAL NO. 334 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. We have heard both counsel. The appellant is the father of a minor child aged less than five years now. The child is in custody of the mother and she is employed abroad. The father's application for custody was not considered favourably by the court below. The mother stated before the court below that she, who is employed abroad, would be in India during vacation which shall be for a period of 10 days annually. The court below permitted the father to take custody of the child during five days out of those ten days. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The learned counsel prays that on all the ten days the MAT APPEAL 334/2009 2 child may be given to the custody of the father during vacation. We find the said request is to be not reasonable as the child will have to visit other relatives also. Altogether there is only ten days in the vacation. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned direction that the father can have custody of the child for five days does not warrant any interference by invoking the appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there may be a direction to handover the child whenever the respondent comes to India. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is unlikely to come to India except during vacation. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it need only be directed that if the child available in India during other vacations or for longer periods than 20 days the respondent shall intimate that fact to the appellant before the respondent reaches India with the child and thereupon it shall be MAT APPEAL 334/2009 3 open to the appellant to seek appropriate direction from the Family Court. 4. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.