VEENA THERESA PAUL Vs. PAUL RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against order dated 14/3/2017 in IA No.150/2017 in IA Nos.3233/15 and 3755/15 in OP No. 1455/2012 by which petition to restore earlier applications on file after condoning delay had been rejected by the Family Court. The appellant is the 1 st respondent in OP No.1455/2012 in which an ex parte decree had been passed by the Family Court appointing the 1 st respondent herein, who is the father of the minor children, as their guardian and direction had been issued to the appellant to hand over custody of the minor children. Being an ex parte judgment, appellant filed IA No. 3233/2015 to set aside the ex parte decree along with an application IA No.3234/2015 to condone delay of 186 days in filing the petition. Petitioner filed another application IA No.3755 /2015 to condone delay of 279 days in filing petition to set aside ex parte decree. The said applications were dismissed for default on 20/7/2016. Appellant therefore filed IA Nos.150/2017 and 153/2017 for condoning delay and restoring IA Nos. 3233/2015 and 3755/2015, which came to be rejected by the impugned order.

(2.) The short facts involved in the case would show that three minor girl children were born in the wedlock of the appellant and 1 st respondent and they are pursuing their studies in Christ Academy School at Bengaluru. An application was filed by the father of the minor children for custody inter alia contending that they were residing within the jurisdiction of this Court and they were taken away by the mother. In the application to condone delay in filing the petition to set aside ex parte decree, it was contended that appellant was staying at Bengaluru along with their children and there was nobody to look after their affairs. It was therefore difficult for her to travel to Ernakulam as there is nobody else to look after the minor children. She contended that she could not appear in the case on account of the fact that children were having busy academic schedule and they were also having internal examinations. In the affidavit filed in support of the application IA No. 150/17, it is contended that all the pending applications were dismissed on 20/7/2016. According to her, the Family Court had issued warrant for production of the children on the said day. However, the counsel could not appear and time was sought to produce the children. The youngest daughter met with an accident on 4/7/2016 and suffered an eye injury. She was taken to St.John's hospital and the doctors advised restricted activities for 15 days. It is stated that the matter was adjourned to 30/7/2016. The appellant along with the minor children were present before Court on 30/7/2016. It is alleged that the 1 st respondent's father chased the appellant and daughters from the court premises and they were threatened. She had filed a complaint before the District Police Chief. The children were taken back to the Family Court. It is alleged that the respondent was howling and crying and the appellant and children were forcefully restrained till 4 p.m. According to her, the counsellor witnessed the panic, agony and fear of the children on seeing their father. The Court had issued direction to produce the children before the Family Court on 15/10/2016. It is further stated that her previous counsel has relinquished the vakalath and she was unable to engage another counsel of her choice before the next posting date. She appointed a new counsel on 31/10/2016 and filed IA No.4682/2016 for injunction to stay the operation of the ex parte order. According to her, she was unaware of the dismissal of IA No.3233/15 on 20/7/2016. Appellant thereafter filed OP(FC) No. 609/2016 before this Court to stay the execution proceedings. Execution proceedings were stayed. The 1 st respondent appeared before Court and submitted that the applications IA Nos.3233/2015, 3234/15 & 3755/2015 were dismissed as early as on 20/7/2016, by which time she had come to know about it and therefore application was filed to condone delay of 149 days to restore the original petition and to restore the earlier applications on file.

(3.) The Family Court observed that after the filing of IA Nos.3233/15 and 3755/2015, the appellant purposefully abstained from the court proceeding. The Family Court further observes that the appellant is involved in shadow fighting against the court and the High Court. She was raising false allegations through internet and other social media. She had even created a fake Face Book account in the name of one of the minors. It is further observed that the appellant's mind is filled with hatred and enmity towards the 1 st respondent and she had induced the minors to hate their father. She depicts her husband as a murderer and she is injecting false and motivated stories against him. It is further observed that in OP(FC) No.126/2016, this Court had directed the pending applications to be disposed of within two months subject to the access of the children to the 1 st respondent. But the appellant failed to produce the children and later warrants had to be issued to produce the children before the Court. It is stated that on account of continuous disobedience of the court order, the applications were dismissed for default and suppressing all these facts, transfer petition was filed before the Supreme Court. The Family Court further observes that the appellant was trying to circumvent the direction given by the Court and the High Court. On 9/10/2016, she telecasted and webcasted a programme in national English channel TV 9 with the title "save us from our father". It was a channel discussion with a pre edited documentary. It lasted for two hours 28 minutes and 20 seconds wherein 1 st respondent was portrayed and projected as a cruel and bad father who is trying to kill his children and order passed by the Court was exhibited and criticized. The programme also depicted that the Family Court at Ernakulam was not child friendly and mischief has been caused to the minor children by issuing production warrant. The Family Court observes that the entire programme was intended to insult and ridicule the judicial system. She also filed a representation before the Union Minister for Human Resources and initiated an online campaign against the court order. It is observed that such acts on the part of the appellant is condemnable and deplorable. She was working hard to disobey or defeat the court's order and to prevent the father from having access to the minor children. It is further observed that recent orders passed by the court was telecasted in the discussion and therefore she was fully aware of the pending proceedings. The Family Court further observes that more than 15 advocates appeared before court on different occassions for the appellant. Without even filing a vakalath they would come and appear and make submissions and thereafter they disappear which according to the Family Court was creating nuisance. It is further observed that even on 7/2/2017, she produced the children in the court premises and they were locked in the car. She made panic phone calls to the police stating that the children are being killed by the father. Two police vehicles came to the court premises when they realised that it was only hoax. Finally a senior counsel Adv.Luthra and his son appeared for the appellant. The counsel suggested the appellant to render an unconditional apology before the Court and seek mercy. However, she started blaming the court for issuing production warrant. It is observed that she is a problem creator and she does not want to resolve the issues and she has no respect to court or court proceedings. She is a person who takes up campaign against judicial and is disentitled to get any relief. An advice is given by the Family Court to approach either a national or international channel for her redressal. The Family Court does not find any merit in the contentions urged. It is also observed that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and the applications were dismissed.