VARUN S. NAIR Vs. REMYA S. NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging Ext. P4 order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A. No. 3472/2014 in OP(G&W) No. 1834/2014. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 22.6.2008. A girl child was born out of the wedlock, on 11.10.2009. The child was in the custody of the petitioner at the time when the respondent filed OP(G&W) 1834/2014. Along with the original petition, the respondent filed IA. No. 3472/14 seeking for interim custody of the minor child, pending disposal of the original petition. The petitioner filed Ext. P3 objections, to the interim application. After considering arguments on both sides, the Family Court passed Ext. P4 order finding that, considering the welfare of the child, who is aged only 5 years, affection of her mother is highly needed. Therefore the paramount interest of the child lies in giving her in the custody of the mother, as an interim arrangement, pending disposal of the original petition. However, the Family Court allowed visitation rights to the petitioner on a fortnightly basis for two days during the week end. It is aggrieved by Ext. P4, this writ petition is filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this Court.

(2.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that, the custody given to the respondent through interim order had virtually resulted in allowing the original petition itself, which the Family Court ought not have done. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not yet filed objections in the original petition and the interim order is passed without taking any evidence, based only on the rival contentions. It is further contended that the findings regarding the welfare of the child was arrived based on no materials available before the Family Court. It is also contended that the Family Court had failed to take note of the contentions raised by the petitioner to the effect that atmosphere in the house of the respondent is not conducive for the welfare of the child.

(3.) WHILE appreciating the rival contentions, we take note of the fact that, interference by this Court by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction is required only when the courts below commit any grave error of jurisdiction or if it acts beyond the scope of any statutory limits. An interim arrangement with respect to custody of a minor child, ordered by the Family Court, cannot be termed as erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. It could not be insisted that such arrangement should be made only after elaborate consideration of evidence based on every pleadings. We do not find any unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the observations made by the Family Court to the extent that a girl child of 6 years needs love and affection of the mother. Merely because custody of the child was with the petitioner at the time of filing of the original petition, nothing prevents the Family Court from making an interim arrangement by handing over custody of the child to the mother, pending disposal of the original petition.