AJITH ALEXANDER MARIAN Vs. JOSEPHINE NEETHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed challenging Exts.P9, P10 and P11 orders passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P.No.2295/2013. The original petition is filed by the 1st respondent seeking for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner and the 1st respondent got married on 16/07/2006 and a child was born to them on 29/10/2008. During the pendency of the original petition, various orders were passed by the Family Court in regard to the custody of the minor child. Petitioner had filed O.P.No. 156/2015 to declare him as guardian of minor child. As per order dated 31/03/2015 in I.A.No.856/2013 by modifying the earlier orders, custody of the child was limited to the petitioner from 10.00 a.m to 1.00 p.m and that too, within the court premises. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing O.P.No. 138/2015 and by judgment dated 17/06/2015, interim custody of the child was given to the petitioner between 10 a.m to 5 p.m on all Sundays. Petitioner was also granted liberty to seek modification regarding custody of the minor child. He, therefore filed I.A.No.2536/2015 to modify the order of interim custody. 1 st respondent also filed an application I.A.No.2507/2015 seeking modification of the earlier order to restrict the visitation rights on alternate Sundays from 1 p.m to 5 p.m. The Family Court passed a common order modifying the earlier orders and limiting custody of the child to the petitioner on every 1 st and 4 th Saturdays between 10 a.m and 1 p.m and in the premises of the Court. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid common order by filing O.P. (FC) No.352/2015. This Court modified the order passed by the Family Court by judgment dated 03/08/2015 and interim custody of the child was given to the petitioner from 10 a.m to 5 p.m on all Sundays. Petitioner was also given liberty to take the child outside the Family Court premises and even to Kollam on Sundays which fall during the Onam and Christmas vacations. In the meantime, first respondent filed I.A.No.2505/2015 to appoint the 2 nd respondent as the next friend/guardian on the allegation that the petitioner was mentally ill and not competent to represent himself or protect his interest. The petitioner also filed I.A.No. 1851/2015 alleging that the 1 st respondent is a person of unsound mind and she had undergone treatment for mental illness in several hospitals and therefore a direction be issued to her to appear before the Psychiatrist or Experts for medical examination. Petitioner filed I.A.No.3396/2014 for permission to meet the child in the school premises. He also filed I.A.No.1825/2015 seeking to amend the objection filed by him in O.P.No.2295/2013.

(2.) The Family Court heard the above three petitions together and dismissed the same by separate orders dated 07/05/2016 which are produced as Exts.P9 to P11.

(3.) The contention urged by the petitioner is that the Family Court passed non-speaking orders and no attempt have been made to consider the same and pass orders on merits. When an application is filed on the ground that the mental capacity for the 1 st respondent ought to be tested by appointing a Psychiatrist/Expert, the Court has to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), which apparently has not been done. Further, in regard to I.A.No.3396/2014, there was nothing wrong in permitting visitation rights of the minor child at the School premises. The amendment sought for in I.A.No.1825/2015 was for the purpose of stating certain additional facts which would not cause any prejudice to the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below was not justified in rejecting the above application.