ADHEESH C.V. Vs. PRAVITHA M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the subject matter of the above matters are with respect to the custody of the minor daughter of the petitioner in W.P.(Crl) No. 418/14 and the 1st petitioner in O.P.(F.C.) No. 503/14, whose name is Adhwaitha, aged 4 years, and as the question of facts and law involved are identical, we heard the above matters together and being disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) W .P.(Crl.) No. 418/14 is moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is the mother of minor child named Adhwaitha, who is now at the age of 4 years and is a student of LKG standard in Rehobath CBSE School, Nellikkunnu. According to the petitioner, she was married by the 6th respondent in this writ petition in accordance with the custom and rights prevailing among Ezhava community in the year 2009. In the said wedlock, the above named girl child was born. According to the petitioner, subsequently difference of opinion occurred among the spouse which ultimately led to various matrimonial disputes. According to the petitioner herein, she preferred GOP No. 875/13 before the Family court, Thrissur, seeking permanent custody of the minor child and in the above OP she had also preferred I.A. No.2073/14 for the interim custody of the child, which according to her, was allowed by the Family court. It is also the case of the petitioner that she had preferred another petition before the Family court for the return of gold ornaments etc. It is also learnt that the 6th respondent has also filed another petition before the Family court, Thrissur, as OP(Guardian) No. 763/14 for permanent custody of the girl child. According to the petitioner herein, as the 6th respondent/her husband had some illicit relationship with one Philipine lady named Joyce Bellano Barramed, the petitioner herein is living separately and she is now with her mother. Thereafter, connected with the marriage of the sister of the 6th respondent, there was some conciliation talks were occurred and pursuant to that, the petitioner joined with the 6th respondent and lived in her matrimonial home, but however, according to the petitioner, the respondent nos.5 and 6 again started to irritate the petitioner and finally the 5th respondent left the house with the child. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that even though she approached the Family court seeking a direction against respondent nos.5 and 6 for producing the child and though the Family court issued a direction to that effect, the child was not produced and hence she approached this Court by filing the above writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ of habeas corpus to produce the body of the daughter of the petitioner by name Adhwaitha, who was in the illegal detention of respondent nos.5 and 6, before this Court and set her free.

(3.) WE heard the learned counsel appearing for the parities in the above cases. We had interacted with the Ward named Adhwaitha and we had also interacted with the mother of the said child as well as the paternal and maternal grandmothers of the ward.