Partly allowed

Lijo Thomas v. the Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC26 Nov 2012WP(Crl.)/596/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A father filed a writ petition alleging that his ex-wife and her new spouse are ignoring his visitation rights and potentially fleeing abroad with their minor child. The High Court directed the Police to investigate the apprehension of the child being taken out of the country and issued interim directions to prevent the child's removal while the Citizen moves the Family Court for enforcement of or

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent police officer to conduct an immediate enquiry and ensure the minor child is not taken out of the country for two months if the apprehension is found to be true.

Lijo Thomas Vs the Superintendent of Police — 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

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/5TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(Crl.).No. 596 of 2012 (S)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MR. LIJO THOMAS, S/O.SRI.THOMAS, RESIDING AT POONTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PREMKRISHNA K.NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT - 695 101.

¶12

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM - 695 605.

¶13

4. MRS. BEENA CHARLY ALIAS BEENA LIJO, D/O. SRI. CHARLY, RESIDING AT BYNA COTTAGE, MOONGODU POST, MOONGODU, OTTOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT - 695 573.

¶14

5. MR.CHARLY, RESIDING AT BYNA COTTAGE, MOONGODU POST, MOONGODU, OTTOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT - 695 573.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.SURESH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WP(CRL)596/2012 S

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU, IN O.P.(G.W) NO.1198/2008 DATED 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008.

¶22

P2: COPYOF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL DATED 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012.

¶23

P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL, ACKNOWLEDGING THE ACCEPTANCE OF EXHIBIT P2, DATED 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶30

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶31

W.P.(Crl) No. 596 OF 2012

¶32

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2012

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J

¶35

Petitioner is the father of a minor child by name master Libin Lijo and the 4^th respondent is the child's mother. Ext.P1 judgment was passed by the Family Court in a original petition filed by the petitioner arraying his wife and her father (respondents 4 and 5 herein) as respondents seeking appointment of himself as the guardian of the minor. In the above original petition, by consent of both the sides Ext.P1 judgment was passed and the petitioner/father was given visitation rights over the child on all 4^th Wednesdays at 3 p.m. at

¶36

W.P.(Crl)No.596 of 2012

¶37

-:2:-

¶38

Varkala Bar Association. Interalia, there is a direction that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to the minor child. The grievance that the petitioner voices in this writ petition is that the contentions in Ext.P1 regarding visitation rights are not being obeyed by respondents 4 and 5. According to the petitioner he has not

¶39

been able to see his child during the past 1½ years. On 7.9.2012 he submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the 2^nd respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Deputy Superintendent of Police has not taken appropriate action. The 4^th respondent has recently got married to somebody who is working abroad. Petitioner apprehends that the child will be taken out of this country. Even though such a statement is made in paragraph 8 of the statement of facts the petitioner has significantly not disclosed the name of the person who married the 4^th respondent. Interestingly, even though about three months have elapsed since Ext.P2, the apprehension of the petitioner that the child will be taken out of the Country, has not

¶40

W.P.(Crl)No.596 of 2012

¶41

-:3:-

¶42

become true. According to us, if the complaint of the petitioner is that the conditions in Ext.P1 judgment are being disobeyed by the 4^th respondent is true then the proper remedy of the petitioner is to move the Family Court itself. We relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy before the Family Court itself. However, in view of the allegation that the 4^th respondent has recently married somebody working in a gulf country and the child is likely to be taken out of the country, we issue the following directions to the 2^nd respondent.

¶43

The 2^nd respondent will conduct immediate enquiry into the allegation of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent has recently got married to somebody who is working abroad and the 4^th respondent is likely to take the minor child out of the country. If the enquiry reveals that there is truth in the above apprehension of the petitioner, 2^th respondent will ensure that the child is not taken out of the country by the 4^th respondent for a period of two months from the date of receiving a copy of this judgment. It is for the petitioner to move the Family Court

¶44

W.P.(Crl)No.596 of 2012

¶45

-:4:-

¶46

and obtain appropriate orders for implementation of Ext.P2 in

¶47

the meanwhile.

¶48

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/- ( PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶50

Sd/- (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶51

ul/-

¶52

[True copy]

¶53

P.S. to Judge.

Lijo Thomas v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lijo Thomas v. the Superintendent of Police

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

Mary Shali @ Prashali Vs Reginold Russel

Maimoonathal Misiriya Vs a.P.Muhammed Ashraf

Vanajakumari K.K. Vs Nil

Jayathra Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

K.Prabhakaran Nair Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Muneer. N Vs Circle Inspector of Police