K SUSMITHA MOHAN Vs. RAJESH UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are the respondents in Ext.P1 Original Petition presently pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam, at the instance of the respondent under Section 7, 12 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for guardianship and custody of a minor child. The writ petitioners are respectively the mother, the material grandfather and the maternal grandmother of the child. The 1st writ petitioner and the minor child are presently residing at Bangalore and the child is being educated there. A preliminary objection was raised by the 1st petitioner before the Family Court on the basis of the documents Exts.P3 to P10 produced along with the Writ Petition that the Family Court does not have territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act to entertain Ext.P1 O.P. According to the writ petitioners, a similar objection was raised by writ petitioners 2 and 3 even before the 1st petitioner entered appearance before the Family Court. That preliminary objection was answered by the Family Court holding the same to be too premature and that the same will be considered if the 1st writ petitioner who is the concerned respondent in Ext.P1 enters appearance. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner entered appearance before the Family Court and filed Ext.P4 preliminary objections. The grievance of the 1st petitioner is that the Family Court has not so far passed any orders on Ext.P4. Yet another grievance of the 1st petitioner is that she sought the permission of the Court to allow her legal assistance for defending herself in Ext.P1 and also to argue Ext.P4 preliminary objections. Ext.P11 application was filed by her in that regard. She complains that the Family Court has allowed Ext.P1 I only on condition that the 1st petitioner appears for counselling before the Family Court on 24.1.2005 failing which the application will stand dismissed. On the basis of the various detailed averments contained in the Writ Petition and the various grounds raised therein, the petitioners have filed the Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:--

(2.) Even though the respondent has entered appearance before this Court through counsel, he has not so far filed any counter-affidavit controverting the averments contained in the Writ Petition.

(3.) I have considered the Writ Petition and the documents Exts.P1 to P12 produced along with the same. I have heard the submissions of Sri.P. Gopakumaran Nair, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri. N.M. Madhu, learned counsel for the respondent.