SUJA ANI G. Vs. GEORGE SKARIAH. P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.P(FC) is filed seeking to challenge Ext.P9 order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband. In their wedlock they have three children. The first one is boy and he is a Dentist. The 2nd and 3rd children are girls, who are students.

(2.) O .P.No.1198 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner under Section 32 of the Divorce Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. A copy of the original petition is Ext.P1. In that original petition, he also filed Ext.P6 I.A.No.1820 of 2013. In that I.A filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the prayer sought was to pass an order allowing the petitioner to meet his daughters Milene Mary George and LeAnn Sarah George for two hours twice every week. Ext.P7 is the objection filed by the petitioner, objecting the prayer sought in Ext.P6. The Family Court heard the matter and passed Ext.P9 order, allowing the petitioner to have visitorial right to the children on the second Saturday of every month from 2 pm to 4 pm. He was also allowed to take the children from the house of the petitioner wife and return them after two hours. It is this order, which is challenged before us.

(3.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that I.A.No.1820 of 2013 filed by the respondent was not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was invoked by the respondent, can apply to proceedings under the Divorce Act, 1869 only, in so far as the procedural matters are concerned and nothing else. Therefore, according to the learned counsel in exercise of the powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Family Court could not have allowed visitorial rights, which is a substantial remedy.