REGHU M. Vs. NANDHINI C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) passed by the Family Court, Order Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.2109/15 in I.A.955/2015 in O.P.(G&W) No.551/2015 is under challenge in this original petition which is instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in the interim application and in the original petition before the Family Court and the respondent herein is the respondent.

(2.) The parties are husband and wife living separated due to matrimonial discord. The original petition was instituted by the petitioner herein seeking guardianship and custody of two minor children, namely Bharat aged 11 years and Karthik aged 4 years, at present. Along with the original petition, I.A.No.955/15 was filed seeking interim custody of the minor children. On 04.07.2015, as per directions issued by the Family Court, the wards were produced by the respondent and they were given custody to the petitioner from 2.00 p.m. till 4.15 p.m. It is mentioned in the impugned order that, on the said date both the parties have agreed to dispose of I.A. No.955/2015 in terms that the petitioner will be given custody of the minor children from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on every Sundays. It was also agreed upon that the children will be taken into custody from the gate of the house of the respondent and shall be returned there. I.A.No.2109/2015 was filed by the petitioner seeking review of the said order passed in I.A.No.955/2015, contenting that he was under the impression that the arrangement was made only till the disposal of I.A.No.955/15. It was also contended that, before passing such an order on 04.07.2015, the Family Court has not ascertained wishes of the minor children.

(3.) The petitioner contended before the court below that he is entitled to get custody of the minor children during weekends and also during school vacations. I.A.No.2109/2015 was opposed by the respondent contending that the order dated 04.07.2015 was passed on the basis of a consensus and there exists no ground to review the same. It was also alleged that, during interim custody the petitioner is tutoring the children and compelling them to depose before the court that the respondent is manhandling them.