KHADEEJA Vs. RAMSHAD K.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Mat Appeal is filed by the respondent in IA.2259/15 in OP.375/14 against the order passed by the Family Court, Tirur dated 8.1.2016, whereby the Family Court has directed the appellant to handover custody of the minor child to the respondent on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of every month from the Family Court premises at 11 a.m. and the petitioner to entrust back the child to the respondent at 4.00 p.m. on next Sunday at the court. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: - -

(2.) Respondent herein has filed IA. No. 2259/15 in OP.375/14 before the Family Court, Tirur seeking to get interim custody of the minor child viz. Rashika who is in the custody of the appellant herein as per the order dt. 19.8.2015 in OP. No. 375/14 of the Family Court, Tirur. The original petition is filed by the respondent/father seeking permanent custody of the child. The daughter of the appellant viz. Fathima and respondent were married on 23.7.2009 and a child named Rashika was born out of the wedlock. While Fathima was hospitalised at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode consequent to certain burn injuries on her body, for the period from 26.3.2010 to 3.4.2010 the minor child Rashika was under the custody of the appellant herein. Fathima succumbed to the injuries on 3.4.2010. When the respondent herein visited the child on the 3rd day of the death of his wife Fathima the appellant refused the child to go with the respondent. Eventhough several attempts were made to get the custody of the minor child he did not get any result. Thereupon the respondent approached the Family Court, Tirur with the above original petition to have permanent custody of the above child.

(3.) The appellant opposed the application contending that at the time of death of Fathima the minor child was a suckling child and Fathima died under suspicious circumstances and the respondent herein and his mother were responsible for the death of Fathima. It was also contended that all the gold ornaments of Fathima was misappropriated by the respondent herein and the appellant suspects that it was a murder. Immediately after the death of Fathima the respondent married another lady and he is residing abroad. The appellant as the grandmother of the child has taken care of the child and she is providing due care and protection to the child and the life of the child is more safe in her hands. The appellant also contended that she has no objection in the respondent visiting the minor child on limited occasions.