JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. We are considering these two appeals together since they involve the same parties, though bringing into fold two different causes of action. 2. Mat.Appeal.No.296/2025 has been filed by the appellant – Sri.T.V.Ganesh (who will hereinafter be referred to by his name for ease) against the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kasaragod, in OP(G&W).No.971/2022; while Mat.Appeal.No.297/2025 has been filed by him against the judgment of the same Family Court in O.P.No.337/2022. 3. Among the aforementioned Original Petitions, OP(G&W).No.971/2022 was filed by Sri.Ganesh seeking permanent custody of his daughter, who is now ten years in age; but, though the respondent – Smt.Saritha (who will hereinafter be referred to by her name for ease) remained ex parte, it has been dismissed, finding that the grant of such relief to him would not be beneficial to the child. 4. While so, Smt.Saritha had filed OP.No.337/2022 against Sri.Ganesh seeking past maintenance for herself and her child; and this has been allowed by the learned Family Court granting an amount of Rs.4,000/- to her for the period from 23.03.2019 to 31.12.2020; along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- to her daughter from 23.03.2019 to 23.03.2022. 5. Sri.Ganesh challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court in OP(G&W).No.971/2022, asserting that the learned Family Court has not assessed the factual situation properly and that this is manifest from the fact that he has not even been given rights of visitation over his child. Coming to the judgment of the learned Family Court in OP.No.337/2022, his contention is that the amounts imposed against him are excessive, particularly because Smt.Saritha was working throughout the period in question. 6. Sri.Ajit G. Anjarlekar, appearing for Sri.Ganesh in both matters, argued that the learned Family Court ought to have not granted any past maintenance to Smt.Saritha, though his client is willing to abide by the order of past maintenance to the child; but that he is now going through extreme financial crisis, which prevents him from doing so immediately. He then contended that the learned Family Court ought not to have dismissed OP(G&W).No.971/2022 because his client has every right, as the natural guardian, to be in custody of his child; and that, even if this had been found to the contrary, he ought to have been given necessary visitational rights over her. He thus prayed that both these appeals be allowed. 7. He thus prayed that both these appeals be allowed. 7. Sri.Suvin R. Menon – learned Counsel appearing for Smt.Saritha and the child in these cases, contended that the findings of the learned Family Court in O.P.No.337/2022 are without error because, it has confined the past maintenance to Smt.Saritha until 31.12.2020 only, since she had conceded in her evidence as PW1 that she was working as a school teacher, drawing Rs.8,000/- per month as salary, after that date. He pointed out that the learned Family Court has been circumspect in granting her only Rs.4,000/- as past maintenance from 23.03.2019 to 31.12.2020 because she had also admitted in her testimony that she was working in the same school with a much lesser salary of Rs.4,000/- per month, during that period. He argued that the minimum maintenance his client – as any other woman - would require is Rs.8,000/-; and this figure was kept in mind by the learned Family Court. He then pointed out that, as regards the child, the learned Court has only granted Rs.5,000/- per month as past maintenance; and that this is in fact exiguous for a child of that age, particularly because large amounts of money will have to be spent for her education, clothing, food, medical expenses etc. 8. Turning to Mat.Appeal No.296/2025, Sri.Suvin R. Menon submitted that a person like Sri.Ganesh, who feigns incapacity to pay even the most necessary maintenance to his child, cannot be heard to seek her permanent custody; and that this has been done only to prejudice the mother - Smt.Saritha. He showed us that the learned Family Court had dismissed the Original Petition even though his client had been incapacitated from appearing before it, thus having declared her ex parte, noting that the child was only nine years in age and requires the company of her mother, particularly at such phase of her life. He thus prayed that both the appeals be dismissed. 9. We have evaluated the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the materials on record. Even though we have not called for the Trial Court Records, we are proceeding to dispose of these matters on the basis of the copies of all the evidence and the documents that have been given to us by the learned Counsel for the parties across the bar, with their consent that we can rely upon the same. 10. Even though we have not called for the Trial Court Records, we are proceeding to dispose of these matters on the basis of the copies of all the evidence and the documents that have been given to us by the learned Counsel for the parties across the bar, with their consent that we can rely upon the same. 10. As far as Mat.Appeal.No.297/2025 is concerned, the challenge of Sri.Ganesh is against the quantum of past maintenance fixed against him. The primary contention of Sri.Ajit G. Anjarlekar - his learned Counsel, is that it is unbelievable that a teacher can work for as little as a figure as Rs.4,000/, as has been asserted by Smt.Saritha in her testimony as PW1; and, in fact, he wanted this Court to take judicial notice that such is impossible. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with this because, in a matter like this, there is no question of any judicial notice being taken, particularly when the evidence remains unimpeached, without any contra evidence having been offered by Sri.Ganesh. This is more so, when we see that the testimony of PW1 is to the effect that she started obtaining Rs.8,000/- per month only from 2021; and if her intention was to keep away the truth from the Court, she need not have deposed so either. 11. Coming to the quantum fixed, we cannot find the mentation of the learned Family Court, that a lady would require Rs.8,000/- per month and a child would require Rs.5,000/- per month as the bare minimum, to be in error. We see that it is for such reason that the Court has fixed Rs.4,000/- per month as past maintenance to the wife from 23.03.2019 to 31.12.2020, taking into account the factum of her earning Rs.4,000/- from the school. One cannot find this figure to be excessive in any manner. Needless to say, the fixing of Rs.5,000/- per month as past maintenance to the child cannot also be held wrong because, as argued by Sri.Suvin R. Menon, a child of that age would require perhaps much more, taking into account the expenses required for school education, food, clothing and such other unexpandables of a young child. 12. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Family Court, which is impugned in Mat.Appeal.No.297/2025. 13. 12. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Family Court, which is impugned in Mat.Appeal.No.297/2025. 13. Coming to Mat.Appeal.No.296/2025, interestingly, the learned Family Court has dismissed the Original Petition filed by Sri.Ganesh, even though the respondent - Smt.Saritha, remained ex parte. We see from the judgment that the learned Family Court has found that, since the child was only nine years in age; and since she is at a phase of her life where she is likely to attain physiological milestones like menarche and such other, she should best be left in the care of her mother. Add to this, the factum of the child being with the mother until now being fully admitted; and the only case of Sri.Ganesh being that he will be in a better position to take care of her because he is earning a salary of more than Rs.30,000/- per month, certainly persuade us to find in favour of the holdings of the learned Family Court. If the appellant - Sri Ganesh, is to honor the past maintenance and the future maintenance orders in favour of his wife and child, obviously, the latter will obtain enough resources to live a life that he thinks is worth for them. His refusal even to pay the past maintenance, or to honor maintenance, clearly establishes the confutative nature of his contention impelled before the learned Family Court. 14. That said, we have no doubt that the child has specific rights over her parents. We see that in most cases, Courts proceed on the assumption that only parents have rights over children; but this is not true, the children have equal or more rights over parents, particularly to their uninterrupted presence and company, but this is often lost sight of. Even though we have not interacted with the child yet, we are firm that she must obtain necessary opportunities of interaction with the father, lest their bond be obliterated forever. We, therefore, put it to Sri.Ajit G. Anjarlekar that we are even willing to allow the father to meet the child every day if required; but his answer was that, since Sri.Ganesh is working at Thrissur, it would not be possible for him to do so. We, therefore, put it to Sri.Ajit G. Anjarlekar that we are even willing to allow the father to meet the child every day if required; but his answer was that, since Sri.Ganesh is working at Thrissur, it would not be possible for him to do so. He prayed that, therefore, his client be allowed to be with the child initially in the morning hours every Saturday; and thereafter, be given under overnight arrangement, subject to her consent in future. 15. The afore suggestion of Sri.Ajit G. Anjarlekar was wholly accepted by Sri.Suvin R. Menon; but saying that this Court may ensure that no force is used and the child is not subjected to anything deleterious to her young mind and psyche. 16. We find that the suggestion of Sri.Ajit G. Anjarlekar to be the most suited in the given circumstances, particularly because there appears to be some amount of distance between the father and the daughter as of now. It is, therefore, apposite that the child get used to the father in the morning time every weekend for the initial phase; and then, subject to her consent, be allowed to be with him overnight. 17. In the afore perspective, we dispose of these appeals in the following manner: A) Mat.Appeal.No.297/2025 is dismissed. B) Mat.Apppeal.No.296/2025 is allowed in part, with the following directions: a) The findings of the learned Family Court that the mother will have permanent custody of the child is confirmed. b) The above, however, is subject to right of the father to be in interim custody of the child from 10 A.M every Sunday henceforth, till 4 P.M on that day. The place of exchange for this shall be in front of the residential gate of the mother. c) We order that the arrangement in 'b' above will continue for a minimum period of four months; after which, either the parties can arrive at an arrangement, where she can be with the father overnight, perhaps to start on a Saturday, to be returned on Sunday, with the place of exchange being the front gate of the residence of the mother, or, any other appropriate place of mutual choice. If, on the other hand, they are unable to do so, we leave liberty to the father to move the Family Court appropriately for such orders. If, on the other hand, they are unable to do so, we leave liberty to the father to move the Family Court appropriately for such orders. After we dictated this part of this judgment, Sri.Suvin R. Menon – learned Counsel for Smt.Saritha, submitted that there is one more litigation between the parties, in which his client has moved an application for striking of the defence of Sri.Ganesh. He, therefore, prayed that it be clarified that none of our observations in these cases would have any reflection on the said proceeding. We certainly clarify that our intent is not to interfere with any other proceeding between the parties; and that the learned Family Court or any other Court, will decide such as per law, without being fettered or influenced by any of the observations in this judgment.