TREESA INCHODY Vs. MATHEW THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the mother of a minor child, a boy, aged 9 years. It is unnecessary to refer to the history of this litigation. Suffice it to say that the child is now in the custody of the mother, who happens to be employed abroad. The respondent herein is the father of the child. The father claimed custody of the child during the vacation. The court below proceeded to direct that the child can be handed over to the custody of the father from 23.08.2010 to 01.09.2010. That period admittedly fell squarely within the period of vacation of the child. The learned Judge of the Family Court further directed that

(2.) It is now admitted that these directions have not been complied with. Long later, on 17.09.2010, the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the impugned order.

(3.) The directions have not been complied with and we are unable to find anything wrong in the directions issued. The court below must definitely be contemplating now of what further directions can or need be issued in the matter. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all her contentions before the court below and we do not, at any rate, find it necessary to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 at this stage to interfere with the impugned order. The challenge fails.