JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. The appellant – the father of two children, aged six and eight years - assail the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kalpetta, in O.P(G&W) No.87/2022 because, their permanent custody had been ordered in favour of the respondent – their mother. 2. Smt.M.B.Shyni – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the children are extremely fond of their father – the appellant herein; and that they are attending classes at Masinagudi, Tamilnadu, where the former is now living. She argued that, hence, the findings of the learned Family Court are untenable; and prayed that this Appeal be allowed, with the children being permitted to stay with their father. 3. In response, Sri.M.R.Sasith – learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the children, as stated above, are now six and eight respectively and are in an age where they would require the presence of their mother more than any other time. He contended that the appellant – father is a man who had married twice before, with a child in one of them; and hence that leaving the children to his care exclusively is not only dangerous to them, but would be counterproductive to their development and growth as worthy citizens. 4. Sri.M.R.Sasith further argued that the appellant had been involved in a criminal case earlier, being of a ‘deviant’ character; and consequently, that the findings of the learned Family Court can never be found to be in error. He concluded his submissions saying that the real nature of the appellant stand exposed since he alleges that the respondent is involved with a man by name ‘Shoukath Ali’, but that he has been unable to corroborate this in any manner, thus establishing the malice he carries against her. 5. We have evaluated the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the various materials and evidence on record. 6. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 - who is the respondent herein and RW1, namely the appellant; along with Exts.A1 to A5 marked on the side of the respondent, with Ext.B1 series of photographs being produced by the appellant. 7. The learned Family Court has, in the impugned judgment, held that the children being girls of 4 and 6 years at that time, require their mother to support their physical and emotional needs, but cannot be alienated from the father either. 7. The learned Family Court has, in the impugned judgment, held that the children being girls of 4 and 6 years at that time, require their mother to support their physical and emotional needs, but cannot be alienated from the father either. It then went through the evidence in detail, to find that the allegation against the respondent by the appellant - that she was involved with a person by name Shoukath Ali - has not been proved; and further that the former had married twice before, fathering a child from one of them, who also is stated to be taken care of by him. 8. When one goes through the admitted case and the evidence available, it becomes ineluctable that, even according to the parties, they were not married legally, but were living together. But, they unequivocally admit that the children are theirs. RW1 – the appellant herein, admitted that he had been married twice before and has a child from one of such marriages, asserting that he is taking care of the child, as also his earlier wives. We see that the learned Family Court has noted the testimony of PW1, that the appellant was involved in a Sessions case; but to find that he had not been convicted and hence, that the allegation of deviant behaviour impelled against him cannot be countenanced. 9. The learned Court also interacted with the children, who said that they prefer to live with their father; but to conclude that this would only be because he has been in their care for several years now, they having been allegedly taken away by him as early as on 28.01.2022. The learned Family Court thus summated that, when the appellant had made an unsubstantiated allegation of immorality against the respondent; and since the children, during their growing up period, would require their mother more than their father, allowed the Original Petition filed by the former and thus granted permanent custody of the children to her. 10. Most of the facts involved in this case are beyond contest and in fact, virtually admitted. 11. But before we go into the details of the same, we must record that there were several orders passed by this Court when this matter was pending before us. 10. Most of the facts involved in this case are beyond contest and in fact, virtually admitted. 11. But before we go into the details of the same, we must record that there were several orders passed by this Court when this matter was pending before us. Most of them, as we will presently record, were issued to endeavour peaceful resolution of disputes between the parties because we saw that the children had equal affection for their parents. Some of the orders are issued by another learned Bench and in one of them, namely the one dated 18.08.2023, the children were given in interim custody to the mother for a few days, obviously with an intent to verify whether they were comfortable with her. 12. We considered this matter for the first time on 28.01.2025, when both sides offered to appear personally with the children. 13. On 07.02.2025, when the parties were so present, an allegation was made by the appellant that the respondent was living with somebody else, to which, her learned counsel – Sri.M.R.Sasith, agreed to file an affidavit disclosing his client’s present address and the persons with whom she is living. 14. The matter went on for some more time thereafter; and on 02.07.2025, the parties again offered to appear with the children. 15. Thus on 18.07.2025, we passed an order as under: Both sides are present before us along with the children. Both sides agreed that the children can be with the mother till next Friday, when we will consider this matter again. The mother agrees that father can call her and talk to the children (Ph:8015226269) through either voice call or video call everyday in the evening. We record this undertaking. List this matter on 25.07.2025. The parties will again be present on that day along with the children. 16. Subsequently, on 25.07.2025, after hearing both sides - who were again present personally - we issued another set of directions which are extracted below: The parties were present before us again with the children. The children appeared to be happy with the mother, though they are very affectionate to the father. 2. We are sure that the couple must find a solution on their own so that their time can be equally shared by the children. 3. The children appeared to be happy with the mother, though they are very affectionate to the father. 2. We are sure that the couple must find a solution on their own so that their time can be equally shared by the children. 3. The learned counsel for the mother seeks time till 31.7.2025 to file an affidavit disclosing where she is going to stay at Sulthan Batheri, in what manner and with whom; as also the details of the schools in which the children will be admitted. 4. We adjourn this matter, therefore, to 31.7.2025 and we make it clear to the parties that the children should start attending school immediately; and that any further delay would be viewed seriously. Until the next posting date, we allow the children to be with the father from this Court, however, recording his undertaking that he will deliver them depending as per our orders to be issued on the next posting date. 17. We considered this matter thereafter on 04.08.2025, on which day, the below order was issued: The respondent has filed an affidavit dated 30.07.2025, disclosing the place where she is working and her residence at Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad. She also mentioned that “Bharathiya Vidhya Bhavan” English Medium Higher Secondary School, Sulthan Bathery, has agreed to admit both her children. 2. However, two affidavits have been filed by the appellant, in response, asserting that the respondent is lying and that she is living with a person by name Surendran at Chennai. He also says that he has been intimidated by the said Surendran. Distressingly, the appellant has made various allegations against the family of the respondent, including her parents. 3. It is thus obvious that the parties are in a much bigger fight and that no amount of persuasion is going to make them understand each other. We, therefore, direct the parties to be present in person before this Court, along with the children, at 10:15 a.m. on 07.08.2025. 18. On 07.08.2025, the learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Nath, submitted that the Police had made enquiries and that a report has been settled to the effect that the respondent has no ‘unacceptable’ connection with the person by name ‘Surendran’, whom the appellant is now naming. 19. 18. On 07.08.2025, the learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Nath, submitted that the Police had made enquiries and that a report has been settled to the effect that the respondent has no ‘unacceptable’ connection with the person by name ‘Surendran’, whom the appellant is now naming. 19. Clearly, therefore, allegations and contra-allegations have been impelled by the parties against each other; but at the core of the controversy are two young children, who appear to be going through great amount of trauma. We are concerned about them because, they are caught between their parents, who are living in places several hours apart and their schooling is now being affected. 20. That said, in the affidavit filed by the respondent on 30.07.2025, as per our earlier said directions, she has disclosed that she is working in a company at Sultan Bathery and residing at ‘Panakkal House’, Nenmani P.O., Sulthan Bathery. She says that she is staying along with her mother, step father, brother and his wife, as also their daughter; and that she has contacted a school in Sulthan Bathery, for admission to the children, which has, however, not fructified because the appellant is refusing to obtain their Transfer Certificate from their current school at Masinagudi. 21. A reply affidavit to the afore is seen to have been filed by the appellant refuting most of the assertions of the respondent, reaffirming his allegations against the aforementioned Sri.Surendran, saying that the children were taken away by the respondent to Chennai, to stay with this person, until they were produced before this Court on 25.07.2025. He has concluded his affidavit saying the he is not prepared to ‘relocate his residence to Madakkara to oversee the proposed schooling of his children’ (sic) and that he wants them since he has no one else in his life. 22. The parties were again before us today; and initially, the children were happy, recounting their time they spent with their mother under our orders. However, when the appellant walked into the Chambers, their tone changed and they started making allegations against their mother, but which they resiled later saying that they have made it only as a ‘casual joke’. Evidently, the children were vacillating in their versions; and to us, it appeared as if they were manipulating their parents, speaking what each of them liked in turns. Evidently, the children were vacillating in their versions; and to us, it appeared as if they were manipulating their parents, speaking what each of them liked in turns. This really pained us because, when children use fantasy, or even lies, to describe what happened between them and their parents, it rings a warning bell, but to our dismay, both sides stuck to their respective positions. 23. Curiously, the appellant started to cry inconsolably, as if he was going into an emotional shock, telling us that he has no one else in his life; but, in the same breath, conceding that he has another child from an earlier marriage. We could not fathom the reason why he was behaving in such an unusual manner, but he then tried to explain that it was because of his fear that he would lose his children and pleaded that the children be allowed to be with him for a few days. 24. To diffuse the situation afore, we acceded to the appellant’s request and allowed the children to go with him; and heard this matter in detail in the afternoon session. 25. The learned Family Court has held in the impugned order that when parents fight, the children become the unfortunate victims; and we are in full affirmation with this, particularly seeing what happened in our Chambers today. 26. Whatever that be, the fact remains that the children are growing up girls, now in the interim custody of their father. The appellant told us that he is a Painter by profession, working in Masinagudi and awaiting allotment of a house by the Panchayat; but conceded that his parents are in Kerala. Interestingly, he then told us that he intends to shift to Kerala, to stay with his parents because he also understands that the children would require the company of ‘women’ when they are to grow further. His explanation was that his mother and sister would be there to take care of the children; and thus pleaded with us, tears running down his cheeks, that they be not taken away from him. 27. The emotional instability exhibited by the appellant surely worries us and we have concerns about the fate and future of the children. They seem to be fully aware of the strife between their parents, which is extremely worrying. 28. 27. The emotional instability exhibited by the appellant surely worries us and we have concerns about the fate and future of the children. They seem to be fully aware of the strife between their parents, which is extremely worrying. 28. When the allegations and contra-allegations made by the parties against each other, obtain no corroborative basis; and when it is conceded that the children are 6 and 8 years old now, with the elder likely to attain physiological milestones like menarche soon, we are left without doubt that the learned Family Court has not erred in finding that the mother is entitled to their custody on a permanent basis. 29. At this time, the learned counsel for the appellant made a rather shocking assertion that this Court cannot take the view that girls reaching menarche require their mother because, there are children in this world whose mothers are not alive. We do not know why this submission was made because, we are not dealing with a case where the mother is not alive, but where she is available in flesh and blood. When children have both their parents; and when the latter fight not on account of anything that can be attributed to the former, it is the duty of this Court to ensure that they are provided the protection they require, taking into account their physiological and psychological welfare and development. The argument, that this Court cannot hold a girl to be in requirement of her mother at the time of her physiological developments, therefore, is rejected. 30. The upshot of the discussion above is that, since the children are equally comfortable with their parents and since they told us specifically that they require both of them, it would certainly be in their best interest that they are allowed to be with their mother on a permanent basis, with full visitation and custodial rights reserved in favour of their father. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since his client does not accept the views of this Court, he is not seeking visitation or interim custody rights and that he intends to pursue his legal remedies as may be available. In the afore circumstances, we dismiss this Appeal, confirming the impugned judgment of the learned Family Court; however, without making any order as to costs, noticing the rather peculiar circumstances involved. In the afore circumstances, we dismiss this Appeal, confirming the impugned judgment of the learned Family Court; however, without making any order as to costs, noticing the rather peculiar circumstances involved. As a corollary, we direct the appellant to handover the custody of the children to the respondent-mother on or before 30 th September 2025, along with their Transfer Certificates from the present school at Masinagudi; with a further direction to the respondent to ensure that the children are admitted to a proper school within a period of ten days thereafter. After we dictated this part of the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his client has also taken a contention that the Original Petition was not maintainable before the learned Family Court because the children were born and brought up in Masinagudi. We do not understand how this argument has been made because the specific case of the mother was that her children were snatched away by the appellant from her residence in the year 2022. Further, we do not see any such contention having been impelled before the learned Family Court either. Of course, a question of law can be raised even at the first instance before this Court, but factually and on evidence, we cannot find the Original Petition to be not maintainable. This argument is also, therefore, rejected.