PRASANNA KUMAR Vs. ROHINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda in I.A.No.2928/2018 in G.O.P.No.194/2018, dated 23.11.2018. Inter alia, he seeks for a direction to the Family Court not to grant interim custody or visitorial right of the minor child to the 1st respondent, unless and until evidence recorded in Ext.P9 application and only after it is satisfied about the mental stability of the 1st respondent.

(2.) The petitioner filed Ext.P6 original petition as G.O.P.No.194/2018 before the Family Court, seeking permanent custody of the minor child born out of the wedlock 1st between the petitioner and the respondent, namely Master Aryadev. The petitioner also sought for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from forcefully taking custody of the minor child, pending disposal of the original petition. The respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is mentally incapable of defending her case, by reason of her mental infirmity. Therefore, the petitioner had cited the 1st respondent in Ext.P6 original petition as a person mentally incapacitated, represented through her father, the 2nd respondent herein. The Family Court had granted an interim injunction in I.A.No.518/2018, restraining the respondents from taking forceful custody of the minor child from the petitioner.

(3.) rd Thereafter the respondent filed an interim application before the Family Court seeking to appoint herself as next friend of the 1st respondent for prosecuting the case. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, the said application was already allowed by the court below. Subsequently, the respondents filed I.A.No.2928/2018 seeking orders for production of the minor child before the Family Court, in order to allow the respondents to visit the child for sometime. On the said application, the Family Court had passed Ext.P10 order on 23.11.2018, as follows; "Notice given. Heard. Produce the child on 01.11.2018." It is the said order which is challenged in this original petition filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.