VIMAL RAVI Vs. VINEETHA V.NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition is filed against Ext.P6(a) and P9 orders passed by the Family Court Ernakulam. The orders were necessitated only because of the defiance of the petitioner herein who was reluctant to produce the minor child before the Family Court as per the Courts direction. The orders were passed in the Original Petition filed for custody of the minor child wherein an interlocutory application was also filed for interim custody.

(2.) On the matter coming up for admission the respondent appeared through Counsel. We were not happy with the conduct of the appellant in not producing the child before the Family Court and hence we directed the minor child to be produced before us on today 16.12.2020. The minor child was produced before us and both the petitioner and respondent were present. In the morning itself we interacted with the child first and then with the mother, in the presence of the child. When we asked the minor child as to whether she would like to go with her mother she flatly refused; obviously because she came from the custody of the father. The child also informed us that she was studying in Abu Dhabi with both her parents. We were also informed that the father and the child had left Abu Dhabi about five months back and after that they were estranged from the mother, the respondent herein. The respondent filed an application for divorce as also one for appointing her as the guardian of the minor child. Taking the totality of the circumstances to consideration, we directed the mother and child to have interaction in our Chambers when Court is functioning. Later, before rising we directed the father also to talk to the minor child.

(3.) In the afternoon at 12.30p.m we again interacted with the parties and the learned Counsel appearing for them. The minor child had in a short time bonded with her mother and was willing to go along with the mother. A very perceptive child, who was intelligent beyond her nine years, sought a deal from us to have the combined presence of her parents during Christmas and the day before respectively in the maternal and paternal house. We were moved; but helpless to grant the wish of the child for the mental barriers built in the minds of the couple are un-surmountable at least for the present. We had to decline the deal when the child surprised us with another request to direct her parents to talk to each other everyday when in the custody of the mother after the father first talks to her. We can only appeal to the good senses of the couple as parents of this highly perceptive child to succumb to her wishes and hope that she would eventually unite her parents.