RAJENDRAN S R Vs. NISHITHA P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of a minor child named Adwaith, aged 3 years and 8 months, is the petitioner herein. The 1st respondent is the former wife of the petitioner, who is the mother of the child. A case with respect to declaration of the guardianship and custody of the child is pending between the petitioner and the 1st respondent before the Family court, Kozhikode as OP No.767/2017. Evidently, an order passed by the Family Court with respect to interim arrangement of custody of the child was subjected to challenge before this court in OP (FC) No.458/2017. In Ext.P1 judgment this court suggested modification regarding the interim arrangement, as follows;

(2.) It was conceded that, both the parties were complying the conditions stipulated in the above said order. Subsequently, the petitioner sought for modification of those conditions by approaching the Family Court, which request was declined, against which the petitioner again approached this court in OP (FC) No.72/2018. But this court declined to interfere. Again, alleging some subsequent developments, the petitioner sought a modification of Ext.P1 judgment, by filing IA No.953/2018 before this court. Through Ext.P2 order, this court declined to grant any modification to the arrangements made under Ext.P1 judgment. But the Family Court was directed to dispose of the case along with another connected matter pending before that court, within a period of 3 months. The said order was passed on 11-06-2018.

(3.) Allegation of the petitioner in the present case is that, the 1st respondent had failed to comply with the terms of Ext.P1 judgment in producing the child before the Court and giving custody to the petitioner, on 13-07-2018. Therefore he filed Exts.P3 & P4 applications before the Family Court, requesting to take appropriate action against the 1st respondent for the violation committed and also for directing surrender of the Passport of the 1st respondent before that court. According to the petitioner, enquiry made by him revealed that, the 1st respondent went abroad by handing over custody of the minor child to some strangers, in gross violation of the orders of this court and in detriment to the interest of the child. Apprehension expressed is that the 1st respondent had already obtained Passport for the minor child and that she may take the minor child also abroad, in violation of the orders of this court. It is stated that, eventhough the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent with a complaint, no action was taken to trace out the child and to hand over custody to the petitioner. Under the above mentioned context, the petitioner is approaching this court seeking relief for ordering production of the child and to hand over custody to him based on an allegation that child is kept under illegal detention.