SIJU A. Vs. NEETHU A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext P8 order passed by the Family Court, Kollam, directing that the respondent is entitled to have custody of the minor child as per the agreement dated 7.6.2017 entered between the petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in this original petition is that, he was married to the respondent on 13.5.2008. In their wedlock, a male child, named, Sijin was born on 24.11.2012. Within a short span of time, differences of opinion arose between the couple. The marriage got irretrievably broken down. The respondent filed OP (G&W) No.698/2018 before the Family Court, Kollam seeking to declare her as the legal guardian of their minor son and give her the OPFC 342 OF 2019 permanent custody of the child. The petitioner and the respondent arrived at an out of Court settlement and executed Ext P2 agreement dated 7.6.2017, agreeing to share the custody of the child. As per Ext P2 agreement, it was agreed in unequivocal terms that the permanent custody of the child would be with the respondent and that interim custody of the child would be given to the petitioner from Friday preceding the second Saturday till the morning of Monday, and also during school vacations.

(3.) Subsequently, the petitioner and respondent filed OP (SMA) 766/2018 under Sec.28 of the Special Marriage Act, to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. The Family Court by Ext P3 order allowed the original petition and dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. According to the petitioner, subsequent to Ext P3 order passed by the Family Court dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent, the respondent OPFC 342 OF 2019 started living with a person named Elias Lenni Morrison, who is a Christian. The petitioner has further alleged that the above person attempted to convert the child as a Christian. He also compelled the child to address him as father. The above person and the respondent physically assaulted the child. Therefore, it is not secure for the child to continue in the company of the respondent.