Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. Sandhya

Kerala HC28 Sept 2012OP (FC)/3189/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Family Court order restricting a father's access to visit his minor child at the school where he studies. The Court invoked supervisory jurisdiction sparingly, finding the order not perverse or illegal. The original petition was dismissed, but the trial was expedited for a final disposition within six months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was not quashed; the original petition was dismissed. The trial court was directed to dispose of the main case within six months.

Anil Kumar Vs Sandhya — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/6TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

OP (FC).No. 3189 of 2012 (R) ---------------------------IA NO.1473/2012 IN OP NO.989/2012 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT DATED 10.09.2012

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ANIL KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.SUDHAKARAN, ANIL BHAVANAM, IVERKALA WEST PUTHANAMBALAM P.O., KUNNATHOOR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.M.A.VINOD SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

SANDHYA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.SADASIVAN, AMBALATHUMBHAGOM, PARAVAZHI KUNNATHOOR TALUK - 690 570.

¶11

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

BKA

¶13

OP (FC).No. 3189 of 2012 (R)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER'(S) ANNEXURES:

¶16

ANNEX.A	COPY OF THE COURT, KOTTA	PETITION RAKKARA.	IN OP NO.989/2012 BEFORE THE FAMILY
ANNEX.B	COPY OF THE	PETITION	IN IA NO.1473/2012 IN OP(G&W) NO.989/12
ANNEX.C	COPY OF THE DATED 10.09.	ORDER IN 2012.	IA NO.1473/2012 IN OP(G&W) NO.989/12

¶17

RESPONDENT'(S) ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

BKA

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶22

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶23

-----------------------------------------OP(FC) No: 3189 OF 2012

¶24

Dated this the 28^th day of September, 2012

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶27

Under challenge in this original petition filed by the father of a minor child, Abhimanue, is the order passed by the Family Court, Kottarakkara in IA No: 1473/2012 in OP No:989/2012.

¶28

The original petition before the court below itself is filed by the petitioner, seeking permanent custody of Abhimanue, a 4½ years old child, who is presently in the custody of his mother, respondent. Under the impugned order, the Family Court has recorded the statement made by the respondent that she has no objection whatsoever in the petitioner visiting the child in the school, where the child is studying. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Annexure C, the impugned order works out

¶29

..2..

¶30

OP(FC) No: 3189 OF 2012

¶31

hardship to the petitioner as the petitioner will have to go out to the same school and seek the leave of the Principal of the school every time he visits his child. The learned counsel for the petitioner requests that Annexure C be modified and temporary custody of the child be given to the petitioner, who is the father of the child at least during weekends.

¶32

Even though the very fervent submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, having guaged the impugned order by the yardsticks which are applicable to the invocation of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227, we are of the view that Annexure C is not one which is liable to be corrected under supervisory jurisdiction. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is a visitorial jurisdiction which should be invoked only very sparingly. It cannot be said that the impugned order is per se illegal. It cannot be said either that the impugned order is so highly unreasonable that the same can be branded as a

¶33

OP(FC) No: 3189 OF 2012

¶34

..3..

¶35

perverse order in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law. We are not inclined to interfere with Annexure C order.

¶36

We dismiss the original petition. However, we direct the Family Court, Kottarakkara to expedite the trial and final disposal of OP No:989/2012. At any rate, it should be ensured that the above original petition is tried and disposed of finally within six months from today.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶39

Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶40

bka/-

Anil Kumar v. Sandhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. Sandhya

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

Thomas Varghese Vs Anila Maria Kurian

Thomas Varghese and Others Vs Anila Mariya Kurian

Johnson Jose Vs Lovely Thomas

Krishna Priya G. Menon Vs K.P.Viju

Moli Thomas Vs Keshab Chand

Sudhan Kumar Vs Priya.J