Disposed

Jeeva Santhosh v. Nomy Joppan

Kerala HC8 Nov 2018OP (FC)/601/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking expedited disposal of a custody-related interim application in the Family Court due to pendency. The Court directed the additional charge judge to advance the hearing within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the additional charge judge to advance the hearing of the interim application to the day on which he holds sitting during the week commencing 12.11.2018 and dispose within one month.

Jeeva Santhosh Vs Nomy Joppan — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

OP (F.C).No. 601 of 2018

¶8

O.P.NO.1072/2018 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶9

PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

¶10

JEEVA SANTHOSH, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. SHRI. SANTHOSH D'SOUZA UNIT-2, 40 NOCKOLDS CRESENT, NOBLE PARK, VIC-3174, AUSTRALIA (PERMANENT ADDRESS: SATHY BHAVAN, KAZHAKOTTAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695582

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA

¶12

RESPONDENT/:RESPONDENT: NOMY JOPPAN AGED 33 YEARS S/O. JOPPAN GEORGE, NJAVAROOR HOUSE, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 531

¶13

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP (FC).No. 601 of 2018 : 2 :

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

C.K.Abdul Rehim,J.

¶17

The only relief sought for in this Original Petition, which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to direct the Family Court, Kottarakkara to dispose of I.A.No.2176/2018 in O.P. (G&W)No.1072/2018, expeditiously, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court. In view of the relief proposed through this judgment, we do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondent. Therefore the above Original Petition is disposed of

¶18

at the stage of its admission itself.

¶19

2. The petitioner herein is the

¶20

OP (FC).No. 601 of 2018 : 3 :

¶21

petitioner before the Family Court in O.P.

¶22

(G&W)No.1072/2018 filed against the respondent herein, seeking declaration of the guardianship and custody of the minor daughter of the parties, Ms.Bethsheba Meriam Nomy. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2176/2018 in the said case seeking permission to take the minor child to Australia for educational purposes, where the petitioner is at present employed. Inter alia , the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to hand over the Passport of the minor girl. It is stated that, the petitioner, who is now working in Australia has came down to India on two occasions in order to complete the formalities with respect to the Visa of the minor child for taking her to Australia. The grievance

¶23

OP (FC).No. 601 of 2018 : 4 :

¶24

expressed is that, the respondent is not co-operating with an expeditious disposal of the interim application before the Family Court and is trying to protract the matter. Therefore the petitioner seeks the reliefs as mentioned above in this Original Petition.

¶25

3. When the above case came up for admission on 31.10.2018, this Court directed the Registry to call for a report from the Family Court, Kottarakkara with

¶26

respect to the present stage of I.A.No.2176/2018. It was requested to indicate the maximum time required for disposal of the said interim application.

¶27

4. The Judge, Family Court, Kollam, who is holding full additional charge of the

¶28

OP (FC).No. 601 of 2018 : 5 :

¶29

Family Court, Kottarakkara has forwarded a report dated 2.11.2018. It is mentioned that, the office of the Judge, Family Court, Kottarakkara is now remaining vacant and that the Judge, Family Court, Kollam is now holding full additional charge, w.e.f.17.9.2018. It is also mentioned that there is no regular sitting at the Family Court, Kottarakkara and that the Judge who is now holding charge is conducting sitting only once in a week. It is also mentioned that, I.A.No.2176/2018 was posted on 17.10.2018 for appearance of the parties, but it was adjourned thereafter to 26.10.2018, as there was no sitting on 17.10.2018. The respondent had already entered appearance in the case and the matter now stands adjourned for filing

¶30

OP (FC).No. 601 of 2018 : 6 :

¶31

objections and hearing, to 14.12.2018. It is pointed out in the report that there is heavy pendency of around 4000 cases in both the courts at Kollam as well as at Kottarakkara. It is also stated that the pendency includes considerable number of 5+ year old cases. It is also pointed out that there are cases in which this Court had fixed time bound disposal pending in in both the courts. However, the learned Judge had requested three months time for disposal of the above said interim application.

¶32

5. We take note of the reality of the situation, where the post of the Judge at Family Court, Kottarakkara is remaining vacant. At the same time, considering the urgency of the matter as expressed by the

¶33

OP (FC).No. 601 of 2018

¶34

: 7 :

¶35

petitioner, in getting orders in

¶36

I.A.No.2176/2018, we think it appropriate to direct the Judge who is holding the full additional charge of that court to have an expeditious disposal of the said application. Question whether the petitioner can be permitted to take the child to Australia during pendency of the Original Petition, is a matter which need to be adjudicated and decided based on the contentions on either side. Since it is brought to our notice that the petitioner has to leave India within a short time, it is desirable to have an expeditious disposal of the above said interim application, on an out of priority basis.

¶37

6. Hence, the above Original Petition is hereby disposed of by directing the Judge,

¶38

OP (FC).No. 601 of 2018 : 8 :

¶39

Family Court, Kollam, who is holding full additional charge of the Family Court, Kottarakkara to advance the posting of I.A.No.2176/2018 in O.P.No.1072/2018 from 14.12.2018, to the day on which he holds sitting at the Family Court, Kottarakkara, during the week commencing on 12.11.2018. The Family Court shall insist upon the respondent for filing objection/counter affidavit in the said I.A., without any further delay. I.A.No.2176/2018 shall be disposed of after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date to which the hearing is advanced.

¶40

The Registry shall communicate this order to the Judge, Family Court, Kollam, who is

¶41

OP (FC).No. 601 of 2018

¶42

: 9 :

¶43

holding the full additional charge of the

¶44

Family Court, Kottarakkara.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR

JUDGE

Bb/8/11/2018

OP (FC).No. 601 of 2018 : 10 :

¶53

APPENDIX

¶54

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.(G&W) 1072/2018 DATED 6.8.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.2176/2018 DATED 20.8.2018 IN O.P.(G&W) 1072/2018 DATED 6.8.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE FROM THE GUIDELINES ISSUD BY THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING, VICTORIA STATE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVENTION ORDER DATED 11.10.2017 IN CASE NO.H10863611 ISSUED BY DANDENONG MAGISTRATE'S COURT, VICTORIA.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.8.2018 IN O.P.(F.C) 479/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶56

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶57

NIL

¶58

P.A. To Judge

¶59

Jeeva Santhosh v. Nomy Joppan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeeva Santhosh v. Nomy Joppan

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

K.C.Sathyaseelan Vs K.Kajal

Sherly Tomy, Vs Scaria

Santhosh Kumar D Vs Sreedevi A.P

Amal Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Tony Jose Vs Jerin Jose @ Aley

Vyshak K.R Vs the Inspector General of Police