NAVAS Vs. SURUMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the above cases are arising out of the same original petition before the Family Court, Attingal and since the parties in the cases are common, both the above cases are considered and disposed of together through this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioner in O.P. (FC) No. 410 of 2015 who is the appellant in Mat A. No. 1072 of 2015, is the petitioner before the court below in O.P. (G & W) No. 477 of 2014. The respondent herein is the respondent therein. The case was instituted before the Family Court seeking permanent custody of a minor child, namely Ali Hyder, born out of the wedlock between the parties. Due to matrimonial discord the petitioner had pronounced 'Talaq' and dissolved the marriage. Afterwards a compromise crime was executed between the parties on 13.11.2013, settling all the matrimonial issues. Thereafter the respondent started life with her parents along with the minor child. Subsequently she had contracted another marriage. Meanwhile the petitioner had taken custody of the minor child and thereafter approached the Family Court, Attingal in O.P. (G & W) No. 477 of 2014 seeking for a declaration that he is the guardian of the minor child, and for restraining the respondent by way of a prohibitory injunction from forcibly taking custody of the minor child from the petitioner. The Family Court passed an interim injunction in the said case, as per order in I.A. No. 716 of 2014, restraining the respondent from taking custody of the child from the petitioner, until further orders. But the respondent had approached this court in a writ petition filed as W.P. (Crl.) No. 200 of 2014, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for directing production of the minor child and for handing over custody to the respondent. The said case was disposed of by this court through the judgment dated 13.5.2014, finding that the respondent can be permitted to take custody of the child, subject to orders which would be passed by the Family Court, Attingal, after hearing both sides. The respondent was directed to produce the child before the Family Court, Attingal on 17.5.2014 and the Family Court was directed to take an appropriate decision with respect to granting interim custody of the child, at the earliest possible. Till such decision is taken by the Family Court, this court permitted to have interim custody of the child with the respondent. Subsequently, the Family Court, Attingal passed an order granting interim custody of the minor child to the respondent herein, in I.A. No. 826 of 2014 filed in O.P. (G & W) No. 477 of 2014, on 29.5.2014. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this court in O.P. (FC) No. 363 of 2014. The said case was disposed of by this court through he judgment dated 28.7.2015, declining interference on the order passed by the Family Court in I.A. No. 826 of 2014. The decision taken by the Family Court to the effect that the mother will be the best person to look after the child was concurred and the decision directing handing over custody of the child to the mother was confirmed. However this court observed that, if the appellant has got any grievance regarding any change of circumstance which warrants any modification in the order, he is at liberty to move the Family Court for that purpose. Liberty was reserved to the Family Court to consider and pass appropriate orders in such application. This court also observed that "if any objection has been raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court in entertaining the petition, that also be considered by the Family Court and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law without delay". In the said judgment, this court allowed a modification to the petitioner regarding his visitorial rights. The petitioner was given visitorial right on the child on alternate weekends, for which the respondent was directed to produce the child before the Family Court at 10 a.m. on alternate Saturdays and the petitioner was directed to return the child at 4 p.m. on the succeeding Sundays before the Family Court, Pala.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the respondent herein approached this court by filing I.A. No. 11782 of 2015 raising complaint that the petitioner had failed to hand over the child as directed by this court, on or before 5.8.2015. The respondent sought for further directions compelling the petitioner to handover the minor child, in compliance of the directions contained in the judgment in O.P. (FC) No. 363 of 2014. While considering the said interim application, this court passed an order on 11.8.2015 making it clear that if the petitioner is not complying with the directions contained in the judgment, it will be left open to the respondent to take appropriate steps before the Family Court to enforce the directions. It is found that no further direction is warranted from this court.