JUMANA Vs. ABDURAHMAN AMBATTUPARAMBIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are two minor children aged 14 years and 16 years and their mother, the divorced wife of the respondent herein. The children are residing with the mother. The husband/respondent herein had filed an application for custody of the children. That proceedings which was pending as O. P. No. 542/08 before the Family Court, Malappuram was disposed of on consent as per Exhibit p2 order dated 3. 11. 2008. Joint statement was filed by the 3rd petitioner herein and the respondent. Accordingly, children continued in the custody of the 3rd petitioner subject to the visitorial right admittedly conceded to the respondent herein.

(2.) THE respondent allegedly attempted to insist on compliance with exhibit P2 order on 7. 5. 2009. The children did not go with the respondent/husband. He then went to the Family Court and filed a petition on 8. 5. 2009. Notice was ordered. Parties appeared on 20. 5. 2009. On that date, the learned Judge of the Family Court directed that the children who are produced must go with the respondent in terms of the consent order Exhibit P2. Accordingly, the court entrusted the children to the custody of the father on 20. 5. 2009. The children continued in his custody till 31. 5. 2009. Thereafter, the children have been returned to the mother. They are now with the mother. They along with the mother have now filed this Writ Petition.

(3.) WHAT is the grievance of the petitioners? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father who had secured Exhibit P2 order dated 3. 11. 2008 had not sought compliance of the order till 7. 5. 2009. He filed a petition on 8. 5. 2009 and when the children were produced in response to the notice issued by the Court, they were by force given over to the custody of the father. This procedure is incorrect. The wishes of the children were not ascertained. The mother was not permitted to advance her contentions. In these circumstances, the impugned order which is not a speaking order is liable to be interfered with, contends the learned counsel for the petitioners.