JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. We are certifying this judgment to be reported, not for anything novel we say, but in reiteration of something so ubiquitous that it misses attention. 2. This is yet another case where parents are fighting for custody of their child. 3. The child was produced before us; and, in him, we saw a little boy whose spirit is broken, markedly tenebrous in his comportment, seemingly depressed and without even a trace of smile on his tender lips. It took us several patient hours with him, to make him feel like child he is; to make him less scared and insecure and to finally smile. 4. His smile was radiant, pure like the first rays of light upon sunrise on a aurelian horizon. 5. After he became composed a little, the child told us, in full hearing of his parents, in a sharp tone, that he hates being paraded in Court and loathes being called again. 6. We, once again, saw the cataclysmic impact Court and legal proceedings can bring upon a tender life; and think it imperatively necessitous to reiterate what this Court said in Indu v. Thomas @ Manoj, 2025 (3) KHC 295. 7. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that the respondent be directed to produce his minor son before this Court and hand over his custody to her; or in alternative, that the said Court be directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 - I.A.No.6/2025 in O.P.(G&W)502/2025, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 8. Sri.S.Nirmal - appearing for the petitioner, explained that the aforementioned Original Petition has been filed by his client seeking permanent custody of her son; but, that the respondent has been obdurately refusing to appear or to produce him before the learned Family Court, thus being constrained to approach this Court. 9. Smt.Rema - appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the facts are not as stated by Sri.S.Nirmal and that her client has appeared before the learned Family Court and is contesting the matter, as per law. She reiterated that, her client has never refused to appear before the Court; and that all allegations to the contrary are untrue. 10. We do not propose to enter into the merits of the above rival submissions at this time, for various reasons. 11. She reiterated that, her client has never refused to appear before the Court; and that all allegations to the contrary are untrue. 10. We do not propose to enter into the merits of the above rival submissions at this time, for various reasons. 11. The parties were before us with the child on 31.10.2025, when we saw that the child was behaving in a rather unusual manner because, even though he had affection for his mother, he was unwilling to go to her. At the request of both sides, we offered them counselling, under the aegis of the Counselling Centre of this Court; and the report is available before us. 12. The Counsellor reports that the child was very comfortable and relaxed in his mother’s presence; but that the parties insisted that each of them obtain full custody. 13. We, thereafter, considered this matter on 3.11.2025, when, with the consent of both sides, we allowed the mother to retain interim custody of the child for a night, but to remain at Ernakulam and to be present before this Court today at 1.45 p.m. 14. However, what we saw today is a complete turn around, with both sides accusing each other, but conceding that the child did not go with the mother. On one hand, Smt.Rema said that the child was being coerced by the mother and forced to go with her; while Sri.Nirmal submitted that it was on account of the tutoring of the child by the father that he was showing reluctance, and that he would have gone had he be given some time, but which was obstructed. 15. Be that as it may, we interacted with the parties again today; and we allowed the mother and the child to be within our Chambers for over one and a half hours, when we were in Court continuing with our work. The entire interaction has been recorded by the Registry of this Court and is available. It shows without any doubt that the child is comfortable with the mother; and that they were playing with each other. However, the moment the father was invited to the Chambers thereafter, the child suddenly became apprehensive and withdrew from the mother. 16. All this really shows the intense trauma that the child is enduring; and we called him to our side and again talked to him. However, the moment the father was invited to the Chambers thereafter, the child suddenly became apprehensive and withdrew from the mother. 16. All this really shows the intense trauma that the child is enduring; and we called him to our side and again talked to him. As mentioned supra, he then told us, as also his parents, in a very distinctive tone, that he does not want to be drawn into courts and does not like being summoned to it in future. 17. Indubitably, the child’s desire can be fructified only if the parents understand the damage that would be done to him, by continuing litigation. 18. However, unfortunately, we saw that each of them stuck to their positions, perhaps consumed by their own interests and sentiment. 19. Obviously, nothing else is available to us to do in this case, but to direct the learned Family Court to take up Ext.P3 and dispose of it off. 20. In the afore circumstances, we allow this Original Petition, directing the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, to take up Ext.P3 application of the petitioner and dispose it off as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 21. To ensure compliance of the afore, we direct the parties to mark appearance before the learned Family Court on 11 th November 2025 at 11.00 a.m. We close this judgment, clarifying that we have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions; and that all of them are left open, to be decided by the learned Family Court appropriately.