Kerala High Court
Nusaiba A.M vs Muhammed Faizal K.M on 17 June, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:43360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 290 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2025 IN I.A.24/2025 IN OP
NO.1190 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
NUSAIBA A.M., AGED 26 YEARS, D/O AM MAKKAR,
AREMTHURUTHY HOUSE, METHALA, METHALA P.O,
ASAMANNOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683545
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
SHRI.VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
SMT.AMRUTHA K P
SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
SHRI.DEVARAJ SUBRAMANIAN
SMT.ASWATHY B. KRISHNA
SMT.AMRUTHA P S
SMT.AMRUTHA P.S.
SHRI.JERIN JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED FAIZAL K.M., S/O MUHAMMED,
KATTAMKUZHY HOUSE, METHALA P.O,
ASAMANNOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683545
BY ADV SRI.AJEESH M UMMER
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:43360
OP(FC) 290/25
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges the order of the learned Family Court, Muvattupuzha, in I.A.No.24/2025 in O.P.No.1190/2023.
2. The afore I.A. was filed by the father of the minor children seeking their interim custody three days a week, till the end of summer vacation; and this has been allowed by the learned Family Court, but granting a further relief that the children be with the father from 10 A.M. every Saturday till 5 P.M. the succeeding Sunday.
3. Apart from the fact that the period sought for during the Summer Vacation has now elapsed, it is conceded by Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, that his client opposes the order only because it has allowed overnight custody of the children in favour of the father. He unequivocally admitted that his client has no objection in the children being allowed to be with their father during day time, but that she is 2025:KER:43360 OP(FC) 290/25 3 apprehensive of giving them during night because of an earlier experience, where she says she had to encounter black magic and such other activities from the husband and family. He pointed out to Ext.P4 Charge Sheet in substantiation and reiterated that his client would have no objection in the children being allowed to be with the father during day time every Saturday and Sunday, but not at night.
4. Before we move forward, we must record that we had considered this matter on 02.06.2025, when we passed the following order:
Read order dated 27.05.2025.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the children stayed with the father without any event.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, requested us to create an arrangement for interaction between the father and children; however, praying that overnight custody be not given to the father.
4. Since the overnight custody that we gave to the father has gone without incident, we are of the view that the children should have time with the father every weekend for the entire day, including night time.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a few days' time to confer with his client.
List on 10.06.2025; in the meanwhile, we order that 2025:KER:43360 OP(FC) 290/25 4 the children will once again be with the father at 5 p.m. on 07.06.2025 till 5 p.m. on 08.06.2025. The place of exchange
- as earlier fixed - will be the front gate of the residential house of the mother.
5. The learned counsel on both sides are ad idem that the interim custody of the children as afore given to the father went without any event. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that this was only because the custody granted was interim in nature and not a permanent arrangement. He asserted that if the father is given the children as ordered by the learned Family Court on a regular basis, he would conduct black magic on them.
6. When we examine the order impugned, the learned Family Court has recorded that the respondent had filed affidavits before it, to the effect that he or his family is not indulging any black magic or practices of occult and that they would not do so in future either. The learned Court has also found that the children had affection for their father, which we also found to be true, as recorded in our afore extracted order. In fact, when we 2025:KER:43360 OP(FC) 290/25 5 asked them to go with their father, they did so happily and voluntarily; and this very much renders the bonding they have with each other limpid.
7. Therefore, as matters now stand, the only cause of concern is the allegation of the petitioner-mother that the father may conduct acts of black magic or occult on the children. The children are young, but we found them to be very articulate and capable of understanding the scenario they are in.
8. Going by Ext.P4, the allegation is that the acts of black magic or occult were conducted by the respondent and his family on the petitioner, when she refused to abide by their requirements. However, there is not even a whisper that any such act was conducted on the children and this is virtually admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner also. Furthermore, the trial in the matter is still pending, concededly; and hence, it is too early for anyone to conclude on it one way or the other.
9. However, since the petitioner - mother still harbours an 2025:KER:43360 OP(FC) 290/25 6 apprehension as afore, we deem it appropriate and necessary that we warn the respondent not to conduct any acts of black magic or occult involving children in any manner. If there should be any complaint from the petitioner in future, regarding any such conduct by the respondent or his family, while the children are in his interim custody, the Family Court will consider it appositely and issue appropriate orders in any manner that it may deem fit.
10. At this time, the learned counsel for the petitioner - Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar, submitted that his client, though not fully satisfied, is now assured in view of the afore caution exercised by this Court; and hence that she is willing to abide by the impugned order, but requested that it be modified to the effect that the father can be given their interim custody from 5 P.M. every Friday, till 5 P.M. the ensuing Saturday, because children have to attend certain classes on Sundays.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent - Sri.Ajeesh M. Ummer, did not oppose the afore plea and in fact, agreed to it on 2025:KER:43360 OP(FC) 290/25 7 behalf of his client.
In the afore circumstances, even though we dismiss this Original Petition on its merits, we clarify that the interim custody of the children, as ordered in Ext.P1, will stand modified to be from 5 P.M. every Friday henceforth, till 5 P.M. the ensuing Saturday. The place of exchange shall be in front of the gate of the residential house of the petitioner-mother, as also expressly agreed by both sides.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE RR 2025:KER:43360 OP(FC) 290/25 8 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 290/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/05/2025 IN I.A NO.24/2025 IN O.P NO.1190/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA Exhibit-P2 A COPY OF THE I.A NO.24/2025 IN O.P NO.1190/2023 Exhibit-P3 A COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE WIFE/RESPONDENT THEREIN Exhibit-P4 A COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1146/2023 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1 (a) True copy of the order dated 26.03.2025 in I.A 19/2025 in O.P 1190/2023, the Hon'ble Family Court,Muvattupuzha. EXHIBIT R1 (b) The true copy of the petition in I.A 22/2025 in O.P 1190/2023 Hon'ble Family Court,Muvattupuzha dated 01.03.2025. EXHIBIT R1 (c) True copy of the Judgement dated 03.04.2025 in OP (FC) No. 195/2025 by this Hon'ble Court.
EXHIBIT R1 (d) A true copy of the affidavit in O.P 1190/2023 submitted before the Family Court Muvattupuzha dated 30.04.2025