LAWS(KER)-2022-3-114

SHAIN SUDHAKARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 21, 2022
Shain Sudhakaran Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the father of the alleged detenue, a minor boy, aged 8 years. The 6th respondent is the mother of the alleged detenue and respondents 7 and 8 are the parents of the 6th respondent. According to the petitioner, the alleged detenue is in illegal custody of respondents 6 to 8 in contravention of Ext.P2 order of the Family Court, Kottarakara in O.P (G&W) No.1660/2018. Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, commanding production of the minor child before this Court and to give his custody to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner would elaborate that the marriage between the petitioner and the 6th respondent was solemnised on 16/5/2012 at Kulathupuzha. On 9/8/2016, the 6th respondent deserted the petitioner and left to Dubai, leaving the minor son with her parents, respondents 7 and 8. Since then, the minor child has been in the custody of the 6th respondent, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to mingle and interact with the child. The petitioner preferred an Original Petition under the Guardians and Wards Act as O.P (G&W) No.1660/2018 before the Family Court, Kottarakara, seeking permanent custody of the child. The Family Court, vide Ext.P2 order dismissed the original petition, affording minimal visitation rights to the petitioner, that is to interact with the minor/ward through video call on every Monday and Thursday, for a duration of 10 minutes between 5.00 p.m and 5.30 p.m. After expiry of three months from the date of Order, the respondents therein were directed to hand over the custody of the minor ward to the petitioner from 10.30 a.m. till 3.30 p.m on every Saturday for a period of three months. Thereafter, the respondents stood directed to hand over the custody of the minor ward to the petitioner on every second and fourth Saturday at 10.30 a.m., till 3.30 p.m. of the succeeding Sunday. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court as MAT Appeal No.604/2021, which is pending consideration.

(3.) According to the petitioner, respondents 7 and 8 failed to comply with any of the directions in Ext.P2. They do not pick up the phone and even changed the phone numbers, so as to defeat the minimal rights of the petitioner. The petitioner has not seen the child for last more than four years. The petitioner is a citizen of USA and he came to Kerala only to see his child. He has been residing in Kerala since November, 2021, with the sole purpose of meeting his child, which is denied and defeated by respondents 6 to 8. While so, on 27/2/2022, the petitioner got information that respondents 6 to 8 have flown to Dubai along with the ward, without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner, since the 6th respondent is working there. The petitioner would allege that the detenue/ward is in illegal custody of respondents 7 and 8. The minor male child aged 8 years needs the care and attention of his father as well. On such premise, the petitioner seeks the relief above referred. The petitioner relied upon the following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in support of his case.