SASIKUMAR P.P. Vs. MAHAMAYA V.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the petitioner in O.P.(G&W)No.891/2018 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram which was filed by the petitioner for a declaration that the petitioner is the natural and legal guardian of the minor child and also for getting permanent custody of the said minor child.

(2.) The aforesaid O.P. was filed on 11.4.2018. Along with the said O.P, he has filed Ext.P2 application for getting interim custody of the minor child. In both the original petition and Ext.P2 the court ordered notice; but the notice was returned with an endorsement 'door locked'. Since the respondent was willfully evading the process of the court and the address shown in Ext.P1 O.P(G&W) was the address shown in the O.Ps filed by the respondent against the petitioner, before the same court, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 I.A. to serve notice on the counsel appearing for the respondent in the other O.P., for and on behalf of the respondent. Ext.P3 was also posted to 21.8.2018. Thereafter the court passed an order to repeat notice on 21.5.2018 and posted the case to 29.8.2018. Aggrieved by the long adjournment and considering the urgency of the matter, the petitioner had filed Ext.P4 advance petition on 26.5.2018, but, the family court passed an order as 'to be called on 21.8.2018'. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is deprived of his right to get an urgent relief by posting the case as well as the advance petition to a date after about 3 months. According to him, in the above circumstance, there is no way other than approaching this Court, invoking Supervisory Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is the grievance projected in the petition and the petitioner seeks an order directing the Family Court to expedite Exts.P2 and P3 as well as the advance petition and dispose of the same within a time frame.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.