MANEESH P.S. Vs. RAHNA RAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Original Petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P20 order passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in I.A.No.1372 of 2015 in O.P.(G.W) No.1010 of 2015 dated 31.12.2015. The Original Petition before the Family Court is filed by the Respondent herein, seeking declaration of guardianship of the minor children born out of the wedlock between the parties, viz. Aarav born on 20.09.2007 and Aahil born on 10.08.2012, and to grant custody of both the children to the Respondent. Along with the Original Petition, the Respondent had filed I.A.No.1372 of 2015 seeking direction against the petitioner herein to produce the minor children and to hand over custody of the children to the Respondent, pending disposal of the Original Petition. The Family Court had considered the said Interlocutory Application and passed the order impugned in this Original Petition on 31.12.2015. By the impugned order the court below had granted interim custody of the elder child Aarav to the Respondent herein during week ends after the class on the last working day of every week till before the class commences on the first working day of the next week. With respect to the younger child the Respondent is given custody from 11 a.m. of the first Monday of every month till 11 a.m. of 4th Monday of every month. The father is given custody of the said child during the remaining period. It is aggrieved by the said arrangement, this Original Petition is filed.

(2.) Heard counsel appearing on both side.

(3.) The impugned order is written in a highly cryptic manner without there being any elaboration on the rival contentions or on the factual aspects. What is evident from the order is that, the learned Judge had interacted with both the children. It is mentioned that the elder child had stated his opinion that he wants to spend week - ends with his mother and on other dates with his father. But with respect to the younger child, contradictory versions were given when interacted on two occasions and the court below had opined that he is not aged enough to express a considered response. That being so, the order passed by the court below without mentioning anything about adjudication on the conflicting claims or anything on the merits of their respective contentions, could not be sustained legally. There is no reflection of any proper reasoning for handing over custody of the younger child to the mother during major portion of the days in every month, especially when the Court observed that the said child is not matured enough to form an opinion with respect to his stay. So also, in the case of the elder child, apart from the opinion expressed by the child, mentioned in the order, there is no discussion with respect to the merits of the rival claims.