SANTHOSH K.R. Vs. SANITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above case is a splendid example of parents under matrimonial discord fighting each other for custody of their minor children for years together, case after case and court after court, merely to shed out their ego and enmity and thereby putting the helpless children being disposed of as a commodity, without any concern about their real welfare and interest. From the very circumstances existing, this court is convinced that both the parties are not giving importance to the paramount consideration which is the welfare of the minor child, which need to be taken care.

(2.) The litigation started based on a case instituted by the appellant herein as O.P. No. 97/2011 before the Family Court, Thrissur. The minor girl born out of wedlock between the parties was aged only 4 years at that time. The said case was disposed of by the Family Court through a consented order passed on 25.06.2012. The appellant herein had agreed that the child can be continued in the custody of the respondent, subject to condition that temporary custody will be given to him on the 1st and 3rd weekend of every month, from 10 a.m on the Saturdays till 4 p.m on the succeeding Sundays. The direction was to hand over the child from the office of the Family Court and also to return her custody from the court itself. Thereafter, in June 2014, the marital relationship between the parties got dissolved through an order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur in O.P. No. 97/2011, dated 18.06.2014. Meanwhile, the appellant approached the Family Court in I.A No. 2555/2013 alleging violation of the terms of the compromise order and seeking to impose punishment upon the respondent for violations. The respondent filed another interim application as I.A No. 2317/2014 seeking to cancel the order passed in O.P. No. 97/2011. Both the above applications were disposed of together through a common order (Annexure -A3) passed by the Family Court on 11.12.2014. The Family Court found that, intention of the respondent in filing the interim application is only because she does not want to give custody of the child to the appellant any longer. After a perusal of the Register maintained at the Family Court with respect to custody of the children, the Family Court observed that the appellant appeared before the Shirastadar of the Family Court on 10 different dates, from January 2014 upto August 2014. But, except on 24.05.2014, on all days the respondent had not produced the child. Even on 24.05.2014, after production of the child she had left the Family Court with the child, stating that the appellant has not appeared. But the endorsement contained in the Register on the said date is to the effect that the petitioner had informed the Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent that he will reach the court only after one hour and that the respondent should wait. But the respondent left the premises along with the child without waiting for the appellant to come. The Family Court had found that, the wild allegations raised apprehending abuse of the child, is totally baseless. Finding that the respondent had violated the order passed by the Family Court, purposefully without any valid reason, I.A No. 2317/2014 filed by the respondent seeking cancellation of the earlier order was dismissed. The court below found that the respondent is liable to be punished for continuous violation of the directions, by not producing the child in compliance with the order passed by the said court. However, instead of punishing the respondent, the court below took a lenient view and three months time was granted to the respondent for promptly obeying the directions in a scrupulous manner. Accordingly, I. A No. 2555/2013 is ordered as follows:

(3.) The above said common order was subjected to challenge before this court in two Appeals instituted by the respondent as Mat Appeal Nos. 222/2015 and 226/2015. Annexure -A6 is the common judgment through which those appeals were disposed of. During pendency of the above appeals both the parties have filed different interim applications before the court below. The appellant herein filed I.A Nos. 1229/2015 and 1230/2015 seeking for enforcement of Anenxure -A3 order and also for imposing punishment on the respondent herein. Whereas the respondent herein had filed I.A No. 1711/2015, 1712/2015 and 1627/2015, seeking directions for modification of the interim arrangement to the extent of directing the appellant to take the child into custody from the residence of the respondent, and seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to Annexure -A3 order. It was also requested that the Family Court should ascertain the mental condition of the child.