IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 276 of 2010() ---------------------------- OP.286/2009 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMADALI K.V..S/O.MAYIN, KIZHAKKE VEETTIL, KARUMALA POST, BALUSSERY VIA, KOZHZIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAHNA, D/O.HAMSA (LATE), MEPPADATH HOUSE,BEHIND OLD BUS STAND, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No.276 of 2010-G ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The appellant is the father of the minor child now aged 6 ½ years. It is a female child and the child is now a student of the 1st standard. The marriage subsists even now. The spouses are residing separately. The female child is now in the custody of the mother. The appellant/father filed O.P.No.286/09 claiming custody of the female child. The court below by the impugned order, after considering the evidence of the rival contestants as P.W.1 and R.W.1 and considering Exts.B1 and B2 documents filed on the side of the mother of the child, rejected the prayer of the husband for custody of the child. Surprisingly, even visitorial rights were not conceded to the petitioner/appellant - father of the child. We find no discussion on this aspect in the Mat. Appeal No.276 of 2010 -: 2 :- impugned order. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. The respondent, though served, has not chosen to enter appearance. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant, though he does not make any concession on the question of his entitlement for custody of the child, submits that, at any rate, and in any view of the matter, the court below should, at least, have conceded visitorial rights to the appellant - the father of the child. Whatever may be the marital disputes between the spouses, the child needs both the father and the mother and an arrangement in which the father does not get opportunity to meet the child should not have been approved by the Family Court, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. We find merit in that submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. We are not persuaded to interfere with the conclusion of the court below that the female child aged about 6 ½ years (date of birth - 3/11/2003) should continue with its mother and not with the father. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is very much available in India and he wants to exercise visitorial rights so that the relationship between the father and the child is not ruptured. Mat. Appeal No.276 of 2010 -: 3 :- 4. We are satisfied that subject to appropriate conditions concern of the appellant/father that he must have opportunity to interact with the child even when the child continues in the custody of the mother can be accepted. 5. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned order is upheld in all other respects. But it is directed that the father/appellant shall have visitorial rights to see and interact with the child as stipulated below: (i) The child shall be produced before the Family Court on the first and third Saturdays of all English calendar months at 10 a.m. by the respondent/mother and the appellant shall be permitted to interact with the child till 5 p.m. on such days. (ii) As expenses for bringing the child to the Family Court on such days, an amount of Rs.500/- each shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent. On the first day, an amount of Rs.1,000/- shall be paid so that the respondent/wife shall always have in advance sufficient amount to bring the child to the court on the next date. 6. We make it clear that if this arrangement works for a period of one year, it shall be open to the appellant to make necessary applications for modification and such claims for Mat. Appeal No.276 of 2010 -: 4 :- modification shall be considered by the Family Court in accordance with law and appropriate directions shall be issued. 7. The Registry shall communicate this direction to the Family Court forthwith. The direction shall take effect from the month of July, 2010. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge