SHEELA P.L. Vs. MANIKANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges Ext.P2 order passed in I.A. 3350/2011 in OP. 1177/2011 by the Family Court, Palakkad.

(2.) PETITIONER is the wife of the respondent. They have a 7 year old daughter. There was a writ petition, W.P. (Crl.) 373/2011 before this Court alleging that the minor child was under illegal detention. The parties were relegated to the Family Court. Thereafter, the respondent filed OP. 1177/2011 before the Family Court, Palakkad as Ext. P1. He has also filed I.A. 3350/2011 praying for interim custody of the child. According to the petitioner, petitioner appeared as directed by this Court before the Family Court. It is on her appearance without affording a chance to file counter statement, the Family Court allowed the application and custody of the child was entrusted to the respondent by the impugned order, it is the petitioner's case. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the interlocutory application is not closed and that the petitioner did not file any counter to the application till date and it is still open to the petitioner herein to file counter and to get the matter agitated, but, the petitioner has not chosen to do so. We have called for a report. The following is the report.

(3.) SINCE the interlocutory application is not as such closed, we are of the view that, we can dispose of the original petition by directing that if the petitioner files counter affidavit to the interlocutory application, the same will be considered and appropriate orders be passed by the Family Court keeping in view the principles governing the matter and the facts of the case also. The original petition is disposed of as follows: