Allowed

Subash.K. v. Ramya.M.R.

Kerala HC28 Nov 2012OP (FC)/4058/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 to confirm an order granting the petitioner-father interim custody and the respondent-mother weekend custody of a 4-year-old child, dismissing arguments regarding her history of suicidal attempts. The Court also directed the petitioner's visitation rights.

What did the court decide?

Order of Family Court confirmed; petitioner entitled to visitation on all Saturdays and Sundays for half an hour during day time in respondent's house.

Subash.K. Vs Ramya.M.R. — 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

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/7TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶7

OP (FC).No. 4058 of 2012 (R)

¶8

IA.NO.561/2012 IN OP.369/2012 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶9

PETITIONER(S):

¶10

SUBASH.K., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, MARAPURAIKKAL HOUSE, VADAKKEKKAD ELAPPULLY POST, PALAKKAD-678622.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

RAMYA.M.R., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.M.RAJAMANI, MELEPURA HOUSE, KANNAMPARIYARAM, MANAKARA POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678613.

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-112012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O.P.(F.C.) 4058/12

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXTS.:

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.369/2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶19

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.561/2012 IN O.P.NO.369/2012 FILED BY RESPONDENT BEFORE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶20

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P2.

¶21

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 6.8.2012 IN I.A.NO.561/2012 PASSED BY FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶22

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶23

O.P.(F.C.) No.4058 of 2012

¶24

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2012

¶25

Judgment

¶26

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶27

Under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad. By Ext.P4, the learned Judge of the Family Court has disposed of an application for interim custody filed by the respondent who is the mother of a minor child aged 4 years. The decision of the learned Judge is that the interim custody of the child shall be with the petitioner-father only. But taking into account the fact that the respondent is the mother and that the child is only 4 years old, the learned Judge has given week-end custody to the mother, i.e., from Friday evening till Monday morning. Even though Mr.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed Ext.P4 on the various grounds raised in the O.P., we are not persuaded to hold that Ext.P4 is liable to be interfered with by this court under its visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. We do not find

¶28

O.P.(F.C.) 4058/12

¶29

¶30

any clear provision of law either statutory or settled violated by the learned Family Court. We find that the considerations which are expected to weigh with the court alone weighed with the court while taking decision. The one submission which is seriously addressed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent is a woman with suicidal tendency and if the week-end custody of the minor child is entrusted with such a woman, it will be dangerous. We find in this connection that the petitioner has filed O.P. seeking restitution of conjugal rights thereby seeking resumption of the matrimonial relationship between the parties. Moreover, there were materials before the court on the basis of which the court below could gather that the solitary attempt on suicide was made under certain peculiar circumstances and there is no reason for the court below to assume that attempts on suicide will be repeated. In short, we find that the impugned order does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. We decline to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and confirm Ext.P4 order. At the same time, we are of the view that even without issuing notice to the respondent, the petitioner can be given visitation

¶31

O.P.(F.C.) 4058/12

¶32

¶33

rights in the house of the respondent on the child when the respondent is enjoying week-end custody pursuant to Ext.P4. It is ordered that the petitioner will be entitled to visit the child on all Saturdays and Sundays for half an hour during day time.

¶34

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶35

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶36

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶37

srd

Subash.K. v. Ramya.M.R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash.K. v. Ramya.M.R.

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

Siraj.M.a. Vs C.T.K.Ameera

N Pramod Kumar Vs Shahina

Reena Viju Vs Viju Thomas

K.Shameena Vs a.a.Rasheed

Sibi, D/O.Ramla Beevi Vs Shahul Hammed Shamsudeen

Walayar Mil Co-Operative Society Vs Vijayakumar