Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN FRIDAY, THE4H DAY OF OCTOBER201312TH ASWINA, 1935 Mat.Appeal.No. 410 of 2012 () ------------------------------ OP462009 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD AAPPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- JAYASREE, AGED31YEARS D/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, NANDANAM, MANGALAM LAKKIDI, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- VIVEKANANDAN, AGED40YEARS S/O. LATE SANKARAN NAIR, IRUPPAKUZHI HOUSE, KARUMALA CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR (CAVEATOR) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0410- 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.410 of 2012 --------------------------------------------- Dated 4th October, 2013 JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic,J Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Family Court, Palakkad in O.P.46/2009. The said original petition was filed by the respondent seeking custody of his two children from the appellant. During the pendency of the proceedings the elder child "Akhil Anand" expired on 25/8/2010. The Family Court by its judgment dated 6/6/2012, granted custody of the younger child to the respondent. This judgment is challenged by the appellant wife in this Mat.A.410/12 2 appeal.
3. The marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 26/1/1997 and two male children were born in that wedlock on 23/6/1999 and 31/8/2002. In 2008 the couple separated due to differences in the matrimonial life and the children were with the appellant wife. It was in 2009 the respondent husband filed O.P.46/2009 seeking custody of the children.
4. The main reasons alleged by the respondent were that the appellant was having illegitimate relationship with one Santhosh, a driver and she had misutilized the money sent by him from abroad and that therefore, it is not in the welfare of the children to be left with the appellant. Before the Family Court the respondent and appellant were examined Mat.A.410/12 3 as PW1 and RW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked by the respondent. It was thereafter that the Family Court allowed the original petition giving permanent custody of the younger child "Amal Anand" to the respondent with visitation rights to the appellant.
5. Reading of the impugned judgment of the Family Court shows that the Family Court was mainly influenced by its finding that the appellant had relationship with Santhosh and the Family Court also found that the evidence disclosed that she was living with Santhosh. The Family Court further found that the appellant did not have any income of her own and it is on the above basis that the Family Court passed the impugned judgment.
6. In so far as the first issue regarding the relationship between the appellant and Santhosh is Mat.A.410/12 4 concerned, Ext.A3 series of photographs and the evidence of PW1 would indicate that at some stage in her life, she had some kind of an intimacy with Santhosh. But however, the evidence did not substantiate the finding of the Family Court that they were living together. If that be so, the fact that at some time a person had such a relationship, which is also not even alleged to be a case of adultery, cannot disqualify a mother to have custody of the children. In so far as the question whether the mother has resources to maintain the child is concerned, documents produced by the learned counsel for the appellant before us show that since 2012, the appellant is working as a teacher in Sree Bhagavathy Samrakshana Vidyanikethan, Palakkad.
7. Then the surviving question is whether Mat.A.410/12 5 the welfare of the child would be safeguarded if he is left in the company of the mother. Admittedly, the child has been living with the mother. There is no circumstances disqualifying her from the custody of the child also. The child is aged 11 years and is studying in VIth standard. The mother is presently a teacher. In such circumstances, we do not think that we will be compromising the welfare of the child by leaving him in the custody of his mother. However, the respondent is the father and also natural guardian. There is nothing preventing him from enjoying the benefit of that status. Having regard to the above, we are inclined to allow regular weekend custody of the child to the respondent father.
8. Taking note of all the above, we dispose of the appeal with the following directions. Mat.A.410/12 6 1) The order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad allowing O.P.46/2009 will stand set aside and we direct that the child will remain in the custody of the appellant mother. 2) The respondent father will be entitled to weekend custody of the child. We direct that it will be open to the respondent father to pick up the child on the evening of every Friday from the school itself. He shall keep the child with him during weekend and will drop the child back at the school on the following Monday morning. 3) We also direct that when school is having holidays the child shall spend first half of the holidays with the respondent father and the second half with the appellant mother. 4) We also direct that in the event the respondent father has a complaint Mat.A.410/12 7 that the appellant in deliberately not complying with this arrangement, it will be open to him to move the Family Court, Palakkad for appropriate modifications to the above arrangement.
9. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant will fully co-operate with the respondent for the smooth implementation of the above directions. Appeal is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE. (P.D.RAJAN) JUDGE. uj.