XXX Vs. XXX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not propose to consider this review petition on its merits for the singular reason that it is conceded that, subsequent to our judgment, the learned Family Court has passed Annexure 5 order.

(2.) Sri.K.T.Thomas" learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the safeguards embedded by this Court in the judgment are now being misused by the respondent in denying custody of the child. He alleged that when this Court said that no force shall be used and that the child shall be exchanged only in front of the residence of the respondent, the latter is using it as a ruse to deny custody, making untenable allegation that force is still being used. He, therefore, prayed that this petition be allowed.

(3.) As we have said above, we do not propose to pass orders on merits in this matter because, we can certainly issue appropriate orders when Annexure 5 order is challenged before this Court. In fact, Sri.K.T.Thomas concedes that his client has filed an Original Petition against the same.