Disposed

Prakash Somasundaran v. K.K.Kairali

Kerala HC21 May 2012OP (FC)/1288/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an original petition challenging an interim Family Court order regarding custody. The court noted the petitioner's mental health condition and approved additional visitation days for May 2012 without overnight custody, ensuring grandparents supervise the visits.

What did the court decide?

Original petition disposed; custody arrangement per Family Court order maintained with agreed additional days.

Prakash Somasundaran Vs K.K.Kairali — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶6

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2012/31ST VAISAKHA 1934

¶7

OP (FC).No. 1288 of 2012 (R)

¶8

I.A.5612/11 IN OP.2352/2011 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶9

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER - PETITIONER:

¶10

PRAKASH SOMASUNDARAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.V.SOMASUNDARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, 'SUPRIYA' TEMPLE ROAD, POONTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 004.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

¶12

SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶13

SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT:

¶15

K.K.KAIRALI D/O.P.K.K.K.ADIYODI, AGED 36 YEARS LECTURER(ENGLISH), SRI SANKARA COLLEGE SANKAR NAGAR, MATTOOR, KALADY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574, RESIDING AT SALABHAM LEKSHAM VEEDU ROAD, MATTOOR, KALADY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.

¶16

BY ADV. SMT.MAJIDA.S

¶17

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P.(F.C.) No.1288 OF 2012

¶19

A P P E N D I X

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE IN O.P.NO.350/2010 DT. 14.10.2010.

¶22

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED AS O.P.NO.350/2010 IN THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DT. 9.4.2010.

¶23

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED AS O.P.NO.2352/2011 IN THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM DT. 3.12.2011.

¶24

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED AS I.A.NO.5612/2011 IN O.P.NO.2352/11 IN THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM DT. 3.12.2011.

¶25

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO EXT.P4 PETITION DT. 22.12.2011.

¶26

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A.NO.5612/2011 IN O.P.NO.2352/11 DT. 28.12.2011.

¶27

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.5612/2011 IN O.P.NO.2352/11 IN THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM DT. 27.2.2012.

¶28

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.SAM P.J. DT. 23.2.2012.

¶29

EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A.NO.5612/2011 IN O.P.NO.2352/2011 DT. 29.3.2012.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

¶31

EXT.R1(A) :OBJECTION TO O.P.2352/11.

¶32

EXT.R1(B) : E-MAIL LETTER SENT TO RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DT. 16.5.2011.

¶33

EXT.R1(C) : E-MAIL LETTER SENT TO RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER'S DOCTOR SAM PADAMADAN DT. 15.12.2009.

¶34

EXT.R1(D) : E-MAIL LETTER SENT TO THE RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER'S BROTHER DT. 23.3.2009.

¶35

(TRUE COPY)

¶36

TGS

¶37

K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶38

O.P.(F.C.) No.1288 of 2012

¶39

Dated 21^st May, 2012.

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶42

The petitioner and the respondent filed O.P.350/2010 before the Family Court, Kozhikode, under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was disposed of as per order dated 14.10.2010. The parties jointly filed an application dated 9.4.2010 before the Family Court, as per which, the parties agreed that the petitioner herein would be allowed to take the children for half the period of school vacations like Onam, Christmas and summer.

¶43

Complaining that the respondent did not comply with the agreed terms, the petitioner filed O.P.No.2352/11 before the Family Court, Ernakulam for permitting him to have the custody of his minor children, Niveditha and Adithya, during the first half of their school vacations for summer, Onam and Christmas. The application was objected to, by the respondent. Certain interim orders were passed by the Family Court in O.P.2352/11. Later, on 29.3.2012, the Family Court passed an interim order in I.A.5612/2011, the operative portion of which

OP(FC) 1288/12

reads as follows :

“On a careful analysis of the situation, this Court is of opinion that granting over night custody of children with the father, in whole ½ of vacation cannot be granted. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is suffering from change of mood disorder, when it will come and disappear, that cannot be predicted by anybody. Not only that the petitioner is an employee in I.T. field and he will be available in house, only on holidays. Hence, I feel that it is not proper to allow custody of the children, during day times on intervening holidays during vacation will meet the ends of justice. With regard to over night custody, considering the request of his parents, I feel that two days over night custody of the elder daughter had to be allowed, subject to the following conditions :

¶48

Over night custody of the elder daughter is allowed only for two days, on 14^th and 15^th April, i.e. from 9 a.m. on 14^th till 9 a.m. on 16^th , on condition that the child shall always be under the care and vicinity of the grandparents. She should not be allowed to sleep with the father, while her staying in that house and that assurance need be undertaken by the grandparents.

¶49

then custody of younger daughter also allowed on 14^th and 15^th from 9 a.m. till 5 p.m. on each days.

¶50

Custody of both children are further allowed on 17/04,

¶51

OP(FC) 1288/12

¶52

¶53

18/04, 19/04, then on 22^nd , 23^rd , 29^th and 30^th of April, then on 5^th and 6^th of May, 2012. i.e. from 10 a.m. till 5 p.m. on each days, the petitioner shall make arrangements to take the children, and to return them back to their mother.

¶54

The mother or father of the petitioner, anyone of them will also be present along with the petitioner, while taking and returning the children.

¶55

Further, the petitioner shall not take the children for outing and shopping etc. without the presence of his parents, while the children are in his custody.

¶56

Violation of any of the terms and conditions which indicated above will absolve his right to entertain further more custody of children in future.”

¶57

The Original Petition (Family Court) is filed, challenging the order dated 29.3.2012 in I.A.5612/11.

¶58

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶59

It is agreed by the counsel that the petitioner would be entitled to take the children from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on

¶60

OP(FC) 1288/12

¶61

¶62

26^th , 27^th and 28^th of May, 2012, in addition to the custody granted for other days, as per the order impugned. It is submitted that the respondent is at present residing at Kozhikode and the children are residing with her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to go to Kozhikode and take the children from the residence of the respondent on the days mentioned above. The petitioner shall return the children to the respondent at 5 p.m. on 26^th , 27^th and 28^th of May, 2012. In other words, he would not be entitled to have over-night custody of the children for these three days. As observed in the order passed by the court below, the parents of the petitioner or either of them, will be present with him, on all the aforesaid three days, while the children are with the petitioner.

¶63

It is submitted that O.P.2352/11 is to be disposed of on the merits. It is made clear that the Original Petition has to be disposed of by the Family Court, untrammelled by any of

¶64

OP(FC) 1288/12

¶65

¶66

the observations contained in the order dated 29.3.2012 in

¶67

I.A.5612/11, or this order.

¶68

The Original Petition (Family Court) is disposed of as

¶69

above.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶74

tgs

Prakash Somasundaran v. K.K.Kairali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Somasundaran v. K.K.Kairali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi Vs Thomas K.C. & Others

Siddique.K.K and Another Vs Subhairat and Others

Raji Vs Prakasan

Molly Abraham Vs Cyriac Thomas

Lt. Col. Biju Warrier Vs Aparna Nambiar

Kalanthan K.K. Vs Sub Inspector of Police