Partly allowed

Pradeep Kumar K.S. v. Deepa A.H

Kerala HC18 Feb 2013Mat.Appeal/16/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial appeal regarding child custody, the High Court modified the Family Court's order granting temporary custody to the overseas-based father, extending the schedule to twice yearly and reducing conveyance charges from Rs. 500 to Rs. 250.

What did the court decide?

Temporary custody schedule extended to fortnightly visits; conveyance charges reduced to Rs. 250 per visit.

Pradeep Kumar K.S. Vs Deepa A.H — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/29TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

Mat.Appeal.No. 16 of 2012 ()

¶6

OP.1683/2007 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 31-03-2010.

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

PRADEEP KUMAR K.S. AGED 48 YEARS S/O.LATE SIKHIVAHANAN NOW WORKING AS MANAGER-MARKETING PEARL INSURANCE BROKERS COMPANY, DUBAI KADUVANGASSERY HOUSE, CHERAIL, NORTH PARAVUR VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE SRI. PRAMOJ ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶11

DEEPA A.H, AGED 39 YEARS ARUNA NIVAS, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM KOCHI-25, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

tss

¶14

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.D.RAJAN JJ.

¶15

Mat.Appeal . NO. 16 OF 2012

¶16

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2013

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Pius C.Kuriakose,J

¶19

We dispense with notice to the respondent in view of the fact that she did not enter appearance before this court despite service of notice in the application for condonation of the delay.

¶20

Under challenge is the judgment of the Family Court under which the permanent custody of the appellant's child- a girl child now aged 13, has been entrusted to the respondent, the appellant's wife- the child's mother and the appellant is given temporary custody of the child on the 4^th Saturday of every month in the premises of the Family Court, Ernakulam from 2 P.M. to 4 P.M.

¶21

Sri.Shiju Varghese learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is presently employed in Dubai and he will be in a position to come over to Cochin only once in six months. He, therefore, requested that the temporary custody of the minor child be given to the appellant once in six months and the impugned judgment be modified accordingly.

¶22

Mat Appeal No. 16 /2012

¶23

¶24

Having regard to what was submitted before us by Sri.Shiju Varghese, learned counsel for the appellant, we are inclined to modify the impugned judgment to the following extent:

¶25

i). The permanent custody of the minor child Pooja will remain with the respondent. The respondent is directed to permit the appellant to have temporary custody of the child in the premises and precincts of the Family court, Ernakulam on the first Saturday of July every year and also on the 1^st Saturday of January every year from 12 PM to 5 PM

¶26

ii). The direction in the impugned judgment that the appellant shall pay conveyance charges to the respondent is also modified. We reduce the conveyance charges payable by the appellant from Rs.500/- to Rs.250/-.

¶27

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/-

¶30

P.D.RAJAN JUDGE.

¶31

dpk

¶32

/True copy/ P.A to Judge.

¶33

Mat Appeal No. 16 /2012 3

Pradeep Kumar K.S. v. Deepa A.H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar K.S. v. Deepa A.H

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

Sethu G.Nair Vs v.P.Sandhya

Sheeja Vs Sajeev

John Vinith Domnic Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Thankappan Nair Vs B.Prasannakumari

Muhammed Farook Vs Noushida

Suma.P.Mallan Vs Sreekanth S.Mallia