Dismissed

Prasanna Kumar v. Rohini

Kerala HC5 Nov 2018OP (FC)/608/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Family Court order directing a minor's production for court attendance. The Court found no error, illegality, or impropriety in the Family Court's order and declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 despite the petitioner's claims regarding the mother's mental status and the child's health.

What did the court decide?

Original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed. Liberty reserved for the petitioner to seek further adjournment from the Family Court with adequate supporting mate

Prasanna Kumar Vs Rohini — 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

MONDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

OP (FC).No. 608 of 2018

¶8

O.P.NO.194/2018 of FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

PRASANNA KUMAR,

¶11

AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PAZHAYI HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA.P.O., CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 ROHINI (MENTALLY ILL), D/O.VISHWANBHARAN, MACHATTU HOUSE, GANDHIGRAM, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O., REP. BY FATHER/GUARDIAN, VISWANBHARAN, MACHATTU HOUSE, GANDHIGRAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR - 680121.

¶15

2 VISHWANBHARAN, S/O.VASU, AGED 62, MACHATTU HOUSE, GANDHIGRAM, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O., THRISSUR - 680121.

¶16

3 RAMANI, W/O. VISHWANBHARAN, MACHATTU HOUSE, GANDHIGRAM, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O, . THRISSUR - 680121.

¶17

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP (FC).No. 608 of 2018 : 2 :

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

C.K.Abdul Rehim,J.

¶21

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda in I.A.No.2928/2018 in G.O.P.No.194/2018, dated 23.11.2018. Inter alia , he seeks for a direction to the Family Court not to grant interim custody or visitorial right of the minor child to the 1^st respondent, unless and until evidence recorded in Ext.P9 application and only after it is satisfied about the mental stability of the 1^st respondent.

¶22

2. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 original petition as G.O.P.No.194/2018 before the Family Court, seeking permanent custody of the minor child born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent, namely Master Aryadev. The petitioner also sought for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from forcefully taking custody of the minor

¶23

OP (FC).No. 608 of 2018 : 3 :

¶24

child, pending disposal of the original petition. The respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1^st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1^st respondent is mentally incapable of defending her case, by reason of her mental infirmity. Therefore, the petitioner had cited the 1^st respondent in Ext.P6 original petition as a person mentally incapacitated, represented through her father, the 2^nd respondent herein. The Family Court had granted an interim injunction in I.A.No.518/2018, restraining the respondents from taking forceful custody of the minor child from the petitioner. Thereafter the 3^rd respondent filed an interim application before the Family Court seeking to appoint herself as next friend of the 1^st respondent for prosecuting the case. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, the said application was already allowed by the court below. Subsequently,

¶25

OP (FC).No. 608 of 2018 : 4 :

¶26

the respondents filed I.A.No.2928/2018 seeking orders for production of the minor child before the Family Court, in order to allow the respondents to visit the child for sometime. On the said application, the Family Court had passed Ext.P10 order on 23.11.2018, as follows;

¶27

“Notice given. Heard. Produce the child on 01.11.2018.”

¶28

It is the said order which is challenged in this original petition filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

3. According to the petitioner, after passing of Ext.P10 order, the petitioner had filed an affidavit as per Ext.P11, supported by Ext.P12 Medical Certificate informing

¶30

that the child could not be produced on

¶31

1.11.2018, because he is undergoing treatment for Asthma. On 1.11.2018, the

¶32

OP (FC).No. 608 of 2018 : 5 :

¶33

court below had again adjourned the case to 7.11.2018 for production of the child.

¶34

4. This Court do not find any ground for interfering with Ext.P10 order, that too by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, which is purely visitorial in nature. We are at a loss to find any error illegality, impropriety, perversity or lack of jurisdiction in Ext.P10 order. We notice that, I.A.No.2928/2018 was filed by the respondents seeking only a visitation right on the child at the court premises. The Family Court has not even permitted such visitation right in Ext.P10 order, but only directed production of the child. It is further evident that, based on the request of the petitioner, the date stipulated for production of the child was adjourned further to 7.11.2018, presumably on taking note of the illness of the child. Therefore, we are

¶35

OP (FC).No. 608 of 2018 : 6 :

¶36

not persuaded in any manner to exercise the jurisdiction vested on this Court to quash Ext.P10 order. Therefore, the above original petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

5. However, if the petitioner is of the opinion that the child could not be produced on 7.11.2018 because of medical grounds, it is left open to him to convince those facts before the Family Court and to seek further adjournment with adequate supporting materials.

¶38

Reserving the liberty to the petitioner as mentioned above, the above original petition is hereby dismissed.

¶39

Sd/C.K.ABDUL REHIM,

JUDGE

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR

JUDGE

OP (FC).No. 608 of 2018 : 7 :

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 10/07/2018.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT DATED 15/09/2017 BEFORE JFCM, IRINJALAKUDA.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.P. 660/18 ON THE JFCM, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 02/02/2017.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE S.I. OF POLICE, VELLIKULANGARA DATED 16/02/2018.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT, MENTAL HEALTH HOSPITAL DATED 26/02/2018.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) 194/18 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 19/02/2018.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT IN I.A. 518/18 IN G.O(P) 194/18 DATED 19/03/2018.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN G.O.P 194/18 DATED 12/09/2018.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.2928/18 IN G.O.P 194/18 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 29/10/2018.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN I.A 2928/18 IN G.O.P 194/18 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 23/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN G.O.P 194/18 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 01/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 27/10/2018.

¶49

OP (FC).No. 608 of 2018 : 8 :

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶51

NIL

¶52

P.A. To Judge

¶53

Prasanna Kumar v. Rohini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna Kumar v. Rohini

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

Raju Narayana Swamy Vs Beena M.D.

Vahida Vs Jameela

Abdul Salam Vs Asidha

Muraleedharan Nair @ Santhosh Vs Abitha K.S.

Nithya Anand Vs Anish Vijayan

Jayakumar Vs Bindhu