MURSHIDA Vs. JUNAISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed by the respondent in I.A. No. 144/2015 in O.P(G&W) No. 74/2015 and I.A. No. 655 of 2015 in the same petition before the Family Court, Malappuram challenging the orders passed in these applications invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner is the mother of a minor girl by name Khadeeja Nourin, aged 3 1/2 years. The respondent herein is the father of the child. He filed O.P.(G&W) No. 74/2015 before the Family Court, Malappuram seeking custody of the minor child. Along with that petition, he filed I.A. No. 144/2015 before the Family Court seeking interim custody of the child for two days. The Family Court earlier passed Ext. P1 order directing production of the child and handover custody of the child to the petitioner therein as per the agreement entered into between them. It is also mentioned in the order that if the petitioner finds it difficult in enforcing the order, he was given liberty to approach the court. Accordingly, he filed Ext. P2 petition stating that on two occasions namely 1.5.2015 and 25.5.2015 when he went the house of the respondent to get the custody of the child, the respondent and her parents did not hand over the child. So the petitioner wanted to enforce the order. The respondent filed Ext. P3 objection denying the allegations. Even as per the agreement, the child will have to be given on two Sundays in every month and the days on which he alleged to have taken the child were not Sundays and in fact he did not come on those days as alleged. It is also mentioned in the objection that the respondent remarried and her husband is working in gulf country and so she is residing in the tharavadu house. She had also raised a contention that the agreement was obtained by force. She had denied that the petitioner had not approached her for getting custody and prayed for dismissal of the application. Later the Family Court posted the case to 9.6.2015. On that day the child was not produced and so the court below had passed Ext. P4 order directing custody of the child to be given on 2nd and 4th Sundays until further orders and the respondent was directed to produce the child. It is mentioned in the order that parties have agreed to handover the child on 2nd and 4th Sundays of every month until further orders and agreed to produce the child in petitioner's brothers house and on that basis the petition was disposed of accordingly. These two orders are being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.

(3.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.