Remanded

Anitha v. Sreejith

Kerala HC20 Sept 2021OP (FC)/413/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court review order directs the Family Court to fix a time limit for psychological counselling concerning the minor child. It grants the petitioner physical contact rights with the child on Saturdays pending the Family Court's decision on interim custody, noting the child's affection for the respondent-father.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted physical contact with child on Saturdays; Family Court directed to fix counselling limit and decide custody.

Anitha Vs Sreejith — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 29TH BHADRA, 1943
OP (FC) NO. 413 OF 2021

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1088/2019 OF FAMILY

¶8

COURT,THRISSUR, THRISSUR

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

ANITHA, AGED 34 YEARS,W/O SREEJITH, AMMANATH HOUSE,
EDAKKULAM, THANGALLUR POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 590

¶11

BY ADV SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

SREEJITH,S/O VASUDEVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, CHAKKUPARAMBIL
HOUSE, MANGALAM DESOM, WADAKKANCHERY POST AND VILLAGE,
TALAPPILY TALUK, THRISSUR 680 623.

¶14

BY ADVS.
PREMCHAND M.
K.ANITHA JOHN

¶15

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

OP (FC) NO. 413 OF 2021

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶20

The petitioner is the mother of the minor child. The petitioner moved the Family Court for custody of the child. In that an application has been filed for interim custody. The respondent-father filed an application to refer the child for counselling.

¶21

The Family Court considered both the applications and order that the application filed by the petitioner will be considered after receiving the report from the councillor. The application filed by the respondent was allowed and referred both parties for counselling by a clinical psychologist or a consultant phychiatrist. Till the consideration of the application for interim custody, the petitioner was also allowed to interact with the child through video call on every Wednesday and Saturday between 7 pm and 7.30 pm.

¶22

Aggrieved by the non consideration of the application

¶23

OP (FC) NO. 413 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

for interim custody, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶26

In the light of the discussions in the matter by the Family court, we are of the view that the Family Court ought to have fix an outer limit for completing the counselling of the

¶27

parties. The Family Court noted that the child is very much affectionate with the respondent-father and she was not having any intimacy with the petitioner-mother.

¶28

Taking note of the observations of the Family Court, we are of the view that the Family Court should fix the outer limit for completing the counselling by experts.

¶29

Taking note of the fact that the child is having no intimacy, we are of the view that in the meanwhile, the petitioner-mother should be permitted to contact and interact with the child physically on every Saturday from 10.30 am to 1 pm till a decision is taken by the Family Court. The Family Court shall fix the outer limit for completion of counselling and thereafter take an appropriate decision on the interim custody without any further delay.

¶30

OP (FC) NO. 413 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

This contact right will besides to the contact right

¶33

granted by the Family Court through virtual mode.

¶34

This Original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

¶42

OP (FC) NO. 413 OF 2021

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 413/2021

¶45

`PETITIONER EXHIBI` `Exhibit P1`	`TS` `TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO.1088/2019 DATED` `30/5/2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE` `THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO.2668/2019 IN O.P` `NO.1088/2019 DATED 31/5/2019 PREFERRED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER PREFERRED BY THE` `RESPONDENT AGAINST I.A NO.2668/2019 IN O.P` `NO.1088/2019 DATED 6/6/2019 AND FILED BEFORE` `THE FAMILY COURT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE IA 2747/2019 IN O.P` `1088/2019 DATED 6/6/2019 AND PREFERRED BY THE` `RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER DATED 12/6/2019` `PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST IA` `2747/19 IN OP NO.1088/2019 BEFORE THE FAMILY` `COURT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY` `THE CONSULTANT, PAEDIATRICS OF HAMAD GENARAL` `HOSPITAL DOHA, QATAR AND DATED 30.05.2014.`
`Exhibit P6(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY` `THE CONSULTANT ENT SURGEON OF WEST FORT` `HOSPITAL DATED 6/8/2015.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.06.2019` `ISSUED TO THE EX.VICE CHAIRMAN SRM HIGH` `SCHOOL, AKAMALA BY THE RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA 2668/2019` `AND IA 2747/2019 IN OP 1088/2019 DATED` `05.05.2021 PASED BY THE FAMILY COURT,` `THRISSUR.`

Anitha v. Sreejith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha v. Sreejith

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

Lalu, Vs Sheeja

Biju Paul Vs Roobi Paul

Roobi Vs Biju Paul

Sindhu P.V Vs Sreejith Balakrishnan

Ajeesh.P.M Vs Nima K.K

Rajendran Vs Jancy