LEENA Vs. AJIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question, the orders passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, Exts.P3 and P4. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows:

(2.) We heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Gopakumar R. Thaliyal. He would fervently press before us the contention that the court below ought not have given temporary custody of the child to the respondent. It is pointed out that the minor child is suffering from neuro problem and on the one hand, petitioner had no objection in the respondent seeing the child, the court below should not have handed over the temporary custody of the minor child to the father.

(3.) At the first place, we must remind ourselves that this is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is meant to correct the jurisdictional illegalities and errors. There can be no doubt that the Family Court has jurisdiction to pass orders relating to temporary custody of the child. We have perused the order. We do not find any jurisdictional error being committed by the Family Court. We also notice that the period of temporary custody will actually expire today. We are of the view that interference with such orders would in fact, result in manifest injustice. Accordingly, we decline to exercise the jurisdiction and the Original Petition stands dismissed.