Quashed

Anitta Shijo v. Shijo Thankachan

Kerala HC24 May 2024OP (FC)/328/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother sought interim guardianship and permission to take her 15-year-old daughter to the UK; the Family Court rejected it for lack of proof of employment and residence. The High Court quashed that order and directed the Family Court to reconsider after evaluating Exhibits P2 to P6 and P10.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P9 order of the Family Court quashed; Family Court directed to reconsider I.A.No.1/2024 within two weeks of parties appearing on 29/05/2024.

Anitta Shijo Vs Shijo Thankachan — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V &

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY,THE24THDAYOFMAY2024/3RDJYAISHTA,1946
OP(FC)NO.328OF2024
OPGWNO.597OF2024OFFAMILYCOURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶3

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶4

ANITTASHIJO,AGED42YEARS
D/O.SHANTHAANDREWS,RESIDINGATAAABHAVAN,BALA
NAGAR,NEARTITANIUM,VETTUKADU,TITANIUMP.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695021

¶5

BY ADV M.SREEKUMAR

¶6

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶7

SHIJOTHANKACHAN,AGED46YEARS
S/O.THANKACHAN,FLATNO.701,SHEIKHAHAMEDSQUARE
BUILDING,ALNOURASTREET,ALJADDAF,DUBAI,UAE,
PRESENTLYATMERINVILLA,LNRA49,PONGUMOODU,ULLOOR,
MEDICALCOLLEGEP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695011

¶8

SRI K SASIKUMAR, FOR PARTY RESP.

¶9

THISOP(FAMILYCOURT)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
24.05.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶10

OP(FC) No.328 of 2024

¶11

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

¶14

The petitioner is the wife of the respondent, and they have two children: an elder son aged 18, currently studying for a B.A. in Architecture in the United Kingdom, and a younger daughter aged 15. The petitioner filed OP(G&W) No.597/2024 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking permanent custody of their daughter. She also filed I.A. No.1/2024, requesting interim guardianship of the minor and permission to take her to the United Kingdom, contending that she is well-settled and employed there as a Catering Manager.

¶15

The respondent raised his objection contending that no documents have been produced before the Court to substantiate that the petitioner is either employed or has the wherewithal to relocate the child and provide her with education. The Family Court accepted the objections raised by the respondent and rejected the request. The Family Court held that there was total absence of proof regarding her employment, income, and permanent residence in the United Kingdom. Challenging the above order this petition is filed.

¶16

OP(FC) No.328 of 2024

¶17

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is required to relocate to the UK by 23/06/2024 and join her employment. It is contended that it was by oversight of the counsel that documents to substantiate her contention could not be produced before the Family Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the required documents to substantiate her claims of employment, availability of sufficient funds, and a permanent residence and reliance is placed on Exts.P2 to P6 and P10. According to the learned counsel, it would be in the best interest of her daughter to join her brother and pursue her education in the UK. The prayer is to direct the Family Court to reconsider the matter and take appropriate decision.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the child was pulled out of her studies in Dubai and that moving her to the United Kingdom would impede his ability to interact with her.

¶20

We have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. We find that the Family Court proceeded to reject the prayer owing to the failure of the petitioner to prove her employment, income, and plans for the child's education in the UK. The petitioner also has a case that her mother is a UK citizen and she is well settled there. The

¶21

OP(FC) No.328 of 2024

¶22

¶23

petitioner has placed on record Exhibit P2 to P6 and P10 to substantiate that she is in possession of all the relevant documents. We are of the view that though certain documents have been produced, their authenticity and genuineness need evaluation.

¶24

Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that directions can be issued to the Family Court to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law after evaluating Exhibit P2 to P6 and P10. For that purpose we quash Exhibit P9 order. In view of the urgency expressed, the parties shall appear before the family Court on 29/05/2024. The Family Court shall endeavor to pass orders on the application within a period of two weeks from the date of their appearance as ordered above.

¶25

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶26

Sd/P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

¶27

ncd

¶28

OP(FC) No.328 of 2024

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 328/2024

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶32

ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHEPETITIONINOP(G&W)NO.597/2024
FILEDBYTHEPETITIONERBEFORETHEFAMILYCOURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDATED12..03..2024

¶33

ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEIANO.1/2024IN
OP(G&W)NO.597/2024FILEDBYTHEPETITIONER
BEFORETHEFAMILYCOURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED12..03..2024
ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEEMPLOYMENTLETTERDATED
13..03..2024ISSUEDBYM/S.MATTANCHERRYLIMITED
INFAVOUROFTHEPETITIONER
ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHELETTERDATED07..05..2024
ISSUEDBYUKVISAS&EMIGRATIONTOTHE
PETITIONER.
ExhibitP5TRUECOPYOFTHECERTIFICATEOFREGISTRATION
ISSUEDBYTHECHIEFEXECUTIVEOFCAREQUALITY
COMMISSION

¶34

ExhibitP6TRUECOPYOFTHEVISAISSUEDTOTHEPETITIONER
DATEDNIL

¶35

ExhibitP7THETRUECOPYOFTHEOBJECTIONFILEDBYTHE
RESPONDENTINIANO.1/2024INOP(G&W)NO.597/2024
DATED26..03..2024

¶36

ExhibitP8TRUECOPYOFTHEPOWEROFATTORNEYDATED
23..03..2024ISSUEDBYTHERESPONDENTINFAVOUR
OFHISSISTER

¶37

OP(FC) No.328 of 2024

¶38

¶39

ExhibitP9TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED20..04..2024INIA
NO.1/2024INOP(G&W)NO.597/2024OFTHEFAMILY
COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ExhibitP10TRUECOPYOFTHEEMAILDATED14.05â€¦2024ISSUED
BYTHEUKIMMIGRATIONASSOCIATE

Anitta Shijo v. Shijo Thankachan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitta Shijo v. Shijo Thankachan

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

Nayana S Vs Anurag

A.J.Stephen Vs Rosemariya

Sheffiq Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Mrs. Ivy Susan Paiva Vs Robin Johnson

Jean J. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Arunima P.T Vs Anoop