Dismissed

Shaharaban v. Buhari Valappil

Kerala HC9 Jul 2013OP (FC)/4237/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the pendency of a non-bailable warrant against the father does not bar his visitation rights if exercised at the Family Court counsellor's office within supervised hours. Costs for visitation were noted as a condition. The main matter was directed to be disposed of within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Family Court to comply with the interim visitation rights order dated 14.12.2012, including supervised visits at the counsellor's office, despite the non-bailable warrant.

Shaharaban Vs Buhari Valappil — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2013/18TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶6

OP (FC).No. 4237 of 2012 (R)

¶7

PETITIONER(S): --------------

¶8

SHAHARABAN, AGED 27 YEARS, THANIKKAT, MANGALAM AMSOM, KUTTAYI DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, KUTTAYI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 562.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

BUHARI VALAPPIL, S/O.VALAPPIL MUHAMMED, AGHED 31 YEARS, THALAKKAD AMSOM, THEVALAPURAM DESOM, KATTACHIRA, TIRUR TALUK, B.P.ANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 102.

¶12

MULAKKAL UMMACHU, W/O.VALAPPIL MUHAMMED, AGED 57 YEARS, THALAKKAD AMSOM, B.P.ANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 102.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP (FC).No. 4237 of 2012

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OPFC.O.4160 OF 2011 DATED 10.1.2012 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF ORDER IN R.P.NO.113/2012 IN O.P.FC.4160/2011 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.1020/2012 IN O.P.200/2011 ISSUED BY FAMILY COURT MALAPPUPRAM DATED 15.6.2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4: COPYOF JUDGMENT DATED 10.7.2012 IN ORIGINAL PETITION (FAMILY COURT) NO.2073 OF 2012 PASSED BY THIS COURT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF STAY ORDER DATED 22.8.2012 IN ORIGINAL PETITION (FAMILY COURT) NO.2810 OF 2012 PASSED BY THIS COURT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.11.2012 IN IA.NO.2045 OF 2012 IN OP.NO.200 OF 2011 OF FAMILY COURT MALAPPURAM.

¶24

EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF ORDER IN IA.NO.603 OF 2012 IN R.P.NO.113/12 IN O.P.FC.4160/11 DATED 21.11.2012 PASSED BY THIS COURT.

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

PS TO JUDGE

¶27

MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶28

O.P(FC).No. 4237 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT

¶30

Manjula Chellur, C.J.

¶31

The above Original Petition is filed challenging the order of the Family Court dated 16.11.2012 in I.A.No.2045 of 2012 in O.P.No.200 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. In the above Original Petition, as an interim arrangement, by order dated 14.12.2012, this Court opined that the visitation rights of the first respondent-father must be in the office of the Counsellor at Family Court, Malappuram on the first and third Saturdays of every month taking into consideration that at every fortnight interval child must spend some reasonable time in the company of the first respondentfather so as to have acquaintance with his father. In the above circumstances, we directed the father to visit his son in the office of the Counsellor between 12 noon and 3 PM on first and third Saturdays on every Month.

¶32

¶33

OP(FC)4237/12

¶34

Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, there is non bailable warrant to be executed against the first respondent-father, as more than 2,00,000/- is due₹ towards the maintenance of the child and mother. Therefore, there shall not be any visitation rights as long as the non bailable warrant is in force. If the child was given to the custody for overnight for two days, then in case the non bailable warrant is executed, it would be difficult for the mother to know what was happening to the first respondent and the child, but if the visitation rights is in the office of the Family Court Counsellor between 12 noon and 3 PM, even if the warrant is executed during the period between 12 noon and 3 PM of first or third Saturdays of any month, the Counsellor would be present so as to take care of the child and hand over the child back to the mother. If the visitation right is only between 12 noon and 3 PM, naturally the mother also would be accompanying the child to take back the child at 3 PM on first and third Saturdays.

¶35

Therefore, we are of the opinion, pendency of execution of non-bailable warrant will not come in the way of visitation rights of the first respondent-father as directed in the

¶36

OP(FC)4237/12 3

¶37

order dated 14.12.2012, provided he pays the expenses as indicated in the above order at paragraph 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar representing the first respondent father submits, a sum of 3,000/- is deposited on 3.6.2013₹ before the Family Court, Malapppuram towards the visitation expenses.

¶38

With the above observations, we dispose of the above Original Petition directing the Family Court to comply with the interim visitation rights as indicated in the order dated 14.12.2012 of this Court and also in the light of the observations made in the present order and dispose of the main matter as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

vgs9.7

Shaharaban v. Buhari Valappil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaharaban v. Buhari Valappil

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

Praveen S.U. & Others Vs Dr. Davendra Kumar Dhodawat & Another

P. Padmakumar Vs Rajeev Sadanandan

Mr.Mammooty (P.I.Muhammed Kutty) Vs the General Secretary

Mohammed Haneefa Vs Saudath Ashraf

The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs v.Murali Nair

State of Kerala Vs B.Lalitha