Anju vs Sunil
2021 Latest Caselaw 11029 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                   &

              THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

   WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                         OP (FC).No.144 OF 2021

    AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2020 IN IA 4006/2019IN OPGW
       1809/2019 & IA NO.4099/19 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL


PETITIONER:

               ANJU
               AGED 21 YEARS
               D/O BINDU, FROM MANAKKATTIL VEEDU, MUNDANCHIRA,
               PUTHUKURICHI, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE FROM
               THAZHEVILAKATHU VEEDU, MURUKKUMPUZHA P.O.VEILOOR.

               BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        SUNIL,
               AGED 33 YEARS
               S/O CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT KUNNUPAZHANCHIRA VEEDU,
               PUTHUVAL COLONY, CHANNANKARA, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE,
               PIN-695 303.

      2        MATHEWS, S/O BANANSE, LIYA COTTTEGE, 5/709,
               ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
               PIN-695 584.

                BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD                ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(FC).No.144/2021
                                        2




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of April 2021

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J

This matter is related to interim custody of the minor

child. The petitioner is the mother. She challenges Exts.

P7 and P8 orders. By Ext.P7 order, the Family Court

allowed visitation right to the mother on all Wednesdays

and Saturdays between 10 am and 1 pm at the premises of the

father till the disposal of the original petition. By

Ext.P8 order passed in the application filed by the father,

the mother was restrained from taking custody of the child

forcefully.

2. We interacted with the parties. The child is not

familarised with his own mother. The mother left the

company of the child two years ago. In such circumstance,

the Family Court is justified in giving the visitation

right to the mother as per Ext.P7 order. However, we are

of the view that, the order shall be in operation only up

to three months. Thereafter, the Family Court can consider

whether the interim custody of the child can be given to

the mother or not. This judgment shall not preclude the

Family Court in reviewing the visitation rights granted to O.P.(FC).No.144/2021

the mother as above. No further directions are required in

this matter, in view of the judgment as above.

Accordingly, this O.P.(FC) is disposed of.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

                                        DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

kp               True copy                      JUDGE
                   P.A. To Judge
 O.P.(FC).No.144/2021




                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1             A TRUE COPY OF THE OP(G&W) NO 1809/2019 ON

THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO 4006/2019 IN EXT P1 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT P2 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OP(G&W) NO 1851/2019 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON THE FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO 4099/2019 IN EXT P4 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT P5 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.9.2020 IN IA 4006/2019 IN EXT P1 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.9.2020 IN IA 4099/2019 IN EXT P4 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT ATTINGAL