Dismissed

Jayakrishnan U. v. Girijadevi

Kerala HC22 May 2012OP (FC)/1489/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order Petition challenged a Family Court order granting interim custody of a minor to the respondent father after the mother's death. The High Court found the father only had visitation rights earlier but dismissed the challenge regarding the interim custody grant to maintain judicial finality while directing independent consideration for future applications.

What did the court decide?

The interim custody order dated 10.4.2012 in I.A.No.782 of 2012 is not treated as a precedent. The Original Petition is disposed of.

Jayakrishnan U. Vs Girijadevi — 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

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶6

OP (FC).No. 1489 of 2012 (R)

¶7

OP(GW) NO.378/2011 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT

¶9

JAYAKRISHNAN U., AGED 33 YEARS S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, MELATHIL, PERUMTHANNI T.C.29/1686(3), PLANCHERRI LANE, VALLAKADAVU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

¶11

SRI.HARISH R. MENON

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS

¶13

K.GIRIJADEVI, AGED 52 YEARS W/O.K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SIVAPURI, OOKODE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.

¶14

K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.KUMARAPILLAI, SIVAPURI, OOKODE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD BY ADV. SRI.MANU V.

¶16

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP(FC) NO.1489/2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S DOCUMENTS :

¶20

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER AND SREEJA V.NAIR.

¶21

EXT.P2: COPY OF O.P.(G&W) NO.378/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.4.2011 IN I.A.NO.801/2011. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1128/2011 DATED 10.5.2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF I.A.NO.782/2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO I.A.NO.782/2012. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.4.2012.

¶22

EXT.P8: COPY OF I.A.NO.1190/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.4.2012 IN I.A.NO.1190/2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

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

¶27

O.P.(FC) No.1489 of 2012

¶28

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Sankaran, J.

¶31

The petitioner married Archana.R.Nair, the daughter of the respondents, in 2006. In that relationship, a son (Ankith Krishna) was born. Archana died on 31.10.2009. The respondents filed O.P.(GW) No.378 of 2011 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, for getting custody of the child. The respondents filed I.A.No.801 of 2011 for interim custody of the child. That application was rejected as per Exhibit P3 order dated 19^th April, 2011. However, visitation right was provided in favour of the respondents. Later, I.A.No.1128 of 2011 was filed by the respondents for interim custody. That application was dismissed as per Exhibit P4 order dated 10^th May, 2011. Again, the respondents filed I.A.No.782 of 2012 for interim custody of the child during summer vacation of 2012. The Family Court passed Exhibit P7 order dated 10^th April, 2012 granting interim custody of the child to the respondents from 12.4.2012 to 31.5.2012. The petitioner

¶32

O.P.(FC) No.1489/2012

¶33

¶34

filed I.A.No.1190 of 2012 seeking to review the order dated 10^th April, 2012 in I.A.No.782 of 2012. The petitioner contended in the Review Petition that he and his counsel were made to believe that the case was adjourned on 10^th April, 2012. However, the case was called after lunch and the court passed the order dated 10^th April, 2012 without hearing the petitioner and his counsel. The Family Court dismissed I.A.No.1190 of 2012 as per Exhibit P9 order dated 21^st April, 2012 which is under challenge in this Original Petition. In the order impugned, the court below held that the case was passed over to be taken after lunch and since there was no representation, the court passed the order on 10.4.2012.

¶35

The period during which interim custody of the child given to the respondents was from 12.4.2012. That period will end on 31.5.2012. In other words, the respondents will have custody of the child for 9 more days from today. In the facts and circumstances, we do not think that it is necessary to interfere with the order passed by the court below. However, it is made clear that in future if any application for interim custody is filed by

¶36

O.P.(FC) No.1489/2012

¶37

¶38

the respondents, the petitioner would be entitled to point out the orders in I.A.Nos.801 of 2011 and 1128 of 2011 in support of his contention that the Family Court found it not feasible to grant interim custody to the respondents. The present order dated 10.4.2012 as such need not be taken as a precedent in future. When any such application is filed, the Family Court shall consider all aspects of the case independently including change of circumstances and shall pass appropriate orders. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE

¶40

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JUDGE

¶41

csl

Jayakrishnan U. v. Girijadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakrishnan U. v. Girijadevi

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

Molly Abraham Vs Cyriac Thomas

Prakash Somasundaran Vs K.K.Kairali

Lt. Col. Biju Warrier Vs Aparna Nambiar

Najeema Vs Muhammed Hussain

Sharafudeen Vs Bindhiyas

Mohammed Siddique Vs Circle Inspector of Police