MITHRA V.NAIR Vs. BAIJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "It is however, well to remember the well-known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof"

(2.) The respondent sought permanent custody of his minor daughter by name Agneya B. Nair in OP(G & W) No.107/2018 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 7 of the Act. The respondent also sought a declaration that he is the guardian of the minor who is now aged seven years and studying in the II Standard residing with her mother - the petitioner herein. The original petition was accompanied by I.A.No.101/2018 filed under Section 12 of the Act seeking an interlocutory order for temporary custody of the ward during weekends. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner left the matrimonial home on her own accord and that she being employed has little time to pay attention for the ward. The original petition and the interlocutory application dated 17.1.2018 came up for preliminary hearing on 19.1.2018 when the Family Court passed the following order ex parte:

(3.) The petitioner adds that she has already moved under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in M.C.No.27/2018 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The criminal court has also passed an interim order dated 12.1.2018 in C.M.P.No.144/2018 restraining the respondent from entering into the house of the petitioner or causing trouble in her work place. The interim order further restrains the respondent from causing trouble to the ward in her school (Holy Angels School, Nanthancode) or forcibly obtaining the custody of the ward. It is the case of the petitioner that she would have brought all these facts to the notice of the Family Court had she been put on notice and heard before the impugned order. The petitioner points out that the respondent is having extra-marital relationships and used to physically manhandle her forcing her to shift to a rented house with the ward. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent is a person having visual and hearing disability and used to behave cruelly even with the ward many a times leading to hospitalization.