ASOKAN G. Vs. VIJITHAKUMARI A. N.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the above original petition is against Exts. P8 and P9 orders. We are thoroughly dissatisfied with the manner in which the Family Court has dealt with the issue especially regarding the custody of the children. A one-line order has been passed upsetting the final arrangement made in a compromise order. Admittedly, the compromise permitted the father to have the custody of the minors once in a month, including 2nd Saturday and half of Onam and Christmas vacations and for 15 days during mid-summer vacation. The children were being picked up from the School on Friday prior to 2nd Saturday and delivered back to the school on Monday morning itself. Due to the pandemic situation, the children were not going to School and hence the respondent - wife did not permit the arrangement to be carried out.

(2.) It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that a detailed objection was filed to the I.A. filed by the petitioner and after interaction with the children the order has been passed. However, no such details are available in the order. The order passed has to disclose the reasons for refusing the prayer sought and in passing such cryptic orders the Family Court abdicates its functions.

(3.) We understand that a modification has been sought for before the Family Court; but unless the court adjudicates on the same the earlier arrangement agreed to in Ext.P2 has to be continued. The children were reluctant to go with the father only since his company was deprived to them for long due to the pandemic situation. In this appeal, earlier a Division Bench, wherein one of us (MRA. J) was a party interacted with the children and the parties. Finding that the children were reluctant the petitioner -father agreed that the children would be collected at 10 a.m for three days from 30.12.2020 and given back to the custody of the mother at 5 p.m. This was because the children did not have the company of the father for a long period.