RALITH RAM Vs. ASHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P No.633 of 2018 of the Family Court, Thrissur and the respondent is his divorced wife. He filed that O.P for getting permanent custody of the minor child Rishab P.Ralith who is the only child born in their wedlock. The appellant married the respondent on 3/5/2009 and the minor Rishab was born on 6/7/2010. In the year 2016, the matrimonial relationship between the appellant and the respondent got strained and they started living separately, and later obtained divorce as per the decree in O.P No.2132 of 2017. Thereafter, the appellant filed O.P No.633 of 2018 for getting permanent custody of the minor child. The respondent-wife opposed that petition stating that, the appellant was having intimate relationship with one Smt.Renu, and whenever she objected that relationship, she was subjected to cruelty, and later she was sent out of her matrimonial home along with her child. She was granted divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelties from the part of the appellant. So the appellant is not entitled for permanent custody of the child. She is doing everything for the welfare of the child, and the child has to be under her custody permanently, subject to the interim custody granted by the Family Court, which she is complying with.

(2.) The Family Court considered that O.P along with O.P No.1945 of 2017 filed by the parents of the appellant, for getting visitation rights to share love with their grandchild. PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked from the side of the appellant and RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B26 were marked from the side of the respondent. After evaluating the available facts and evidence, and on hearing the rival contentions of either side, the Family Court dismissed O.P No.633 of 2018 denying his prayer for permanent custody and allowed interim custody of the child from 10 a.m on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays till 5 p.m on the following Sunday and also for the first ten days in the month of April and May during summer vacations, fixing the venue for exchange as the office of the Family Court, Thrissur. Challenging the impugned order, the petitioner-father has come up with this appeal.

(3.) The appellant-husband would say that he is preferable to have permanent custody of the child as his educational and financial status are better than that of the respondent-wife. Moreover, the child is now 11 years old and he is able to take intelligent decision on his own. The child had expressed his willingness before the Family Court to live with his father permanently. But, the Family Court erred in finding that the child was not old enough to form an intelligent preference and so his O.P was dismissed permitting the respondent to have permanent custody of the child, and limiting his claim to have only interim custody for few days. According to him, the respondent is leading a flirting life and she is not looking after the child properly. She is not educated enough, and her financial status also is not good enough when compared to that of the appellant. So she is not competent to get permanent custody of the child.