Disposed

Suraiya Beegum v. Fayaz

Kerala HC31 May 2012OP (FC)/1645/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an original petition regarding the custody of a minor child. While acknowledging the mother's failure to comply with prior orders to produce the child, the court modified the Family Court's directions on interim custody to balance the child's studies and eventually compliant production.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to produce child before Family Court on 15.6.2012; interim custody extent to be decided subsequently; coercive steps kept in abeyance.

Suraiya Beegum Vs Fayaz — 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2012/10TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

OP (FC).No. 1645 of 2012 (R)

¶6

---------------------------I.A.NO.790/2012 AND I.A.NO.1010/2012 IN O.P.NO.996/2009 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

SURAIYA BEEGUM, AGED 31 YEARS D/O.MEENA JALAAL, KOTTAMALA HOUSE, MUNDELA P.O NETTIRACHIRA, NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJIT

SRI.NAVEEN.T

RESPONDENT(S):

FAYAZ

S/O.ABU HANEEFA, MALAYIL VADAKKATHIL HOUSE KOLLUKADAVU P.O, CHENGANOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O.P.(FC) NO.1645/2012

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.3.2010.

¶19

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.790/2012 IN O.P.NO.996/2009 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.

¶20

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P2 DATED 14.5.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶21

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.790/2012 IN O.P.NO.996/2009 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.

¶22

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.1010/2012 IN O.P.NO.996/2009.

¶23

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 15.5.2012 IN I.A.NO.790/2012 AND I.A.NO.1010/2012 IN O.P.NO.996/2009 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

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

¶29

O.P.(FC) No.1645 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶33

The petitioner filed O.P.No.996 of 2009 for getting custody of the minor child Nashmiya @ Nada, which was disposed of as per Exhibit P1 judgment dated 1^st March, 2010. The Family Court allowed the child to remain in the custody of the petitioner/mother. It was also held that the respondent/husband would be at liberty to apply to reopen the case when he comes to India.

¶34

The respondent filed I.A.No.790 of 2012 to give interim custody of the child to him. Interim custody was sought for during summer holidays. The Family Court passed an order dated 5^th May, 2012 directing the petitioner/mother to produce the child on 7.5.2012 and to hand over custody of the child to the respondent/father till 11.5.2012. The petitioner did not comply with that order. She filed I.A.No.1010 of 2012 to review the order in I.A.No.790 of 2012.

¶35

O.P.(FC) No.1645/2012

¶36

¶37

The court below dismissed that application as per the order dated 15.5.2012. The court below also directed the petitioner to hand over custody of the child for 7 days on or before 17.5.2012. The order dated 15^th May, 2012 is under challenge in this O.P.(FC).

¶38

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner did not comply with the orders passed by the court below and the child was not produced before court. He also submitted that the respondent is working abroad and the applications before the Family Court were filed by his father as power of attorney holder. Whenever custody is granted, he expected that he could come to India and have the custody of the child. However, the petitioner defeated all his plans and she successfully prevented the respondent from getting custody of the child during summer holidays.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to comply with the order passed by the court below. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent proposes to come to India on 14^th June, 2012.

¶40

O.P.(FC) No.1645/2012

¶41

¶42

He will be available in India for about one month.

¶43

In the facts and circumstances, the O.P.(F.C.) is

¶44

disposed of as follows :

¶45

(i) The petitioner (Suraiya Beegum) shall produce her child before the Family Court on 15.6.2012 at 11 A.M.

¶46

(ii) The Family Court shall consider the question as to the days during which interim custody of the child can be granted to the respondent (Fayaz) without disturbing the studies of the child.

¶47

In view of the modified order passed by this Court, the coercive steps for non compliance of the order passed by the Family Court shall be kept in abeyance till 15.6.2012, and if this order is complied with, the said proceedings shall be dropped.

¶48

K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE

¶49

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

csl

Suraiya Beegum v. Fayaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraiya Beegum v. Fayaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shibu Mathew Vs Samuel Kunjumon

Sudheer Raveendran Vs Maya Damodaran

Joby Varghese Vs Dalsy

Anitha C.Abraham Vs Sajan John

Kochumon Vs Sajeena

Unnikrishnan Vs Rakhi