Disposed

Maju Susan Babu v. Sunil Mathew

Kerala HC12 Apr 2024OP (FC)/258/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother challenged a Family Court direction to produce her child for a custody hearing, asking that her earlier application for psychiatric evaluation be decided first. The High Court declined to prescribe sequencing but directed the Family Court to decide the pending application expeditiously within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Family Court directed to take appropriate decision on pending applications expeditiously, within four weeks.

Maju Susan Babu Vs Sunil Mathew — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
&

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY,THE12THDAYOFAPRIL2024/23RDCHAITHRA,1946

¶3

OP(FC)NO.258OF2024

¶4

AGAINSTTHEORDERDATED01.04.2024INIANO.25/2024IN
OPGWNO.122OF2022OFFAMILYCOURT,KOTTAYAM

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MAJUSUSANBABU,
AGED31YEARS,IRUPATHANCHILHOUSE,
KILIROORNORTHP.O.,KOTTAYAM,
REP.BYHERPOWERHOLDERANDFATHERBABUTHOMAS,
SONOFTHOMAS,AGED68YEARS,
IRUPATHANCHILHOUSE,KILIROORNOTHP.O.
KOTTAYAM,PIN-686020

¶7

BYADVS.
MOHANIDICULLAABRAHAM
ROYGEORGE
MARTIND.ALUMKARA
RACHELJOSEPH
JEEVANJ.MATHEW
SHYAMILIPRIYAP.P.
NIKHITHAT.S.
ASWATHYROY

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

SUNILMATHEW
AGED39YEARS
ATTARMAKKALHOUSE,KAYYOORP.O.,
PALAKOTTAYAM,PIN-686651

¶10

THISOP(FAMILYCOURT)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON12.04.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

OP (FC) No.258 of 2024

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

¶15

The petitioner states that she is the respondent in OP(G&W) No.122 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam. The aforesaid petition has been filed by the respondent herein who is the husband of the petitioner seeking custody of the child.

¶16

The petitioner states that she is presently working in Germany and has been living separately from the respondent since 2014. She asserts that the learned Family Court has directed the petitioner to produce the child on 01.04.2024. According to the petitioner, Ext.P15 application has been filed by the father seeking interim custody of the minor child. She states that she has already preferred I.A No.15 of 2023 before the Family Court seeking various prayers including the request to send the child to Child Psychiatrist, at Kottayam Medical College.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before taking a decision on Ext. P15 application, the learned Family Court be directed to consider Ext.P12.

¶18

Having regard to the submissions, we find that the only order issued by the learned Family Court, which is impugned in this petition, is to produce the child on 01.04.2024. We are not impressed

¶19

¶20

OP (FC) No.258 of 2024

¶21

with the contention of the learned counsel that Ext.P12 application will have to be considered first and then only the application filed by the father should be considered. We take note of the fact that the application has been pending since 22.05.2023. It is for the Family Court to take appropriate decision in the matter, expeditiously, in any event, within an

¶22

outer time limit of four weeks.

¶23

This Original Petition is disposed of.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶26

Sd/- P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

¶27

IAP

¶28

¶29

OP (FC) No.258 of 2024

¶30

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 258/2024

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶32

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF O.P. (G&W) NO.122/2`	`022`
`Exhibit P2`	`COPY` `OF` `OBJECTION` `FILED` `BY` `THE` `PET` `IN O.P. (G&W) NO.122/2022`	`ITIONER`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 27.04.` `I.A. NO.2/2022 IN O.P. (G&W) NO.122/2`	`2022 IN` `022.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED` `CONSULTANT PSYCHOLOGIST IN LAST WEEK` `2022`	`BY THE` `OF MAY`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF` `I.A,` `NO.9/2023` `16.03.2023.`	`DATED`
`Exhibit P6`	`COPY` `OF` `OBJECTION` `FILED` `BY` `THE` `PET` `IN IA NO.9/2023`	`ITIONER`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF` `I.A.` `NO.12/2023,` `20.04.2023.`	`DATED`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 26.04.` `I.A. NO.9/2023.`	`2023 IN`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF` `CERTIFICATE,` `12.04.2023,` `ISSUED` `BY` `THE` `PSYCHOLOG` `MEDCARE` `MEDICAL` `CENTRE,` `MALLA` `PATHANAMTHITTA`	`DATED` `IST` `AT` `PPALLY,`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF` `CERTIFICATE,` `07.05.2023` `ISSUED` `BY` `THE` `ABUNDAN` `FELLOWSHIP CHURCH, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYA`	`DATED` `T` `LIFE` `M`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF` `I.A.` `NO.13/2023,` `20.05.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER`	`DATED`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE` `PHOTOCOPY` `OF` `IA` `NO.15/2023`	`DATED`

¶33

¶34

OP (FC) No.258 of 2024

¶35

22.05.2023

¶36

ExhibitP13TRUEPHOTOCOPYOFINTERIMORDER,DATED
26.05.2023INO.P.(FC)NO.283/2023OFTHE
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA.

¶37

ExhibitP14TRUEPHOTOCOPYOFINTERIMORDER,DATED
30.05.2023INO.P.(FC)NO.283/2023OFTHE
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA.
ExhibitP15TRUEPHOTOCOPYOFI.A.NO.25/2024DATED
04.03.2024
ExhibitP16COPYOFOBJECTIONDATED15.03.2024FILEDBY
THEPETITIONER.
ExhibitP17TRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHEI.A.NO.26/2024DATED
01.04.2024FILEDBYTHEPETITIONER.

Maju Susan Babu v. Sunil Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maju Susan Babu v. Sunil Mathew

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

M D Anilkumar Vs Surekha

Jissimol Abraham @ Elizabeth Vs Babu Joseph @ Joseph

Thomas @ Manoj E.J. Vs Indu S

Sujila Vs Unnikuttan

Rupak R Vs Lakshmi v Pillai

Vishnu.v Vs Sindhu