Kerala High Court
Anjana Abraham vs Martin Thomas on 7 April, 2021
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.256 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN G.O.P.NO.2146/2020
DATED 20-03-2021 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
ANJANA ABRAHAM, AGED 35 YEARS,
D/O.DANIEL ABRAHAM, SKYLINE RANCH VILLA,
HOUSE NO.4 AB, MARKET ROAD,
THRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 301.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.T.S.SARATH
RESPONDENT/S:
MARTIN THOMAS, AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O.SEBASTIAN, KANDACHIRA HOUSE,
KURUMBANADAM P.O., MADAPPILLY VILLAGE,
CHANGANASSERY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 536.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No.256/2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of April 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This matter arises from the interim order
passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in
I.A.No.3569/2020 in G.O.P.No.2146/2020 dated
20.03.2021. The petitioner filed the main original
petition herein to appoint her as the sole legal
guardian and permanent custodian of her minor son
Andrew Thomas Martin and also seeking permission to
take the child abroad.
2. In fact, the parties have earlier settled
the dispute in regard to the custody of the child
in O.P.No.1008/2017 on the file of the Family
Court, Ettumanoor. To vary that order, the present
original petition has been filed. The interlocutory
application was filed to retain the custody of the
child with the mother and that has been dismissed.
3. It is to be noted that the custody is now
maintained as per the order in O.P.No.1008/2017.
Unless the above order is varied or modified in
appropriate manner, the petitioner cannot seek
interim relief to vary such order in a petition
filed like this before the Family Court. No doubt,
in extreme circumstances and taking note of the
paramount welfare of the child, such an order can
be passed. No such extreme circumstances have been
pointed out. Therefore, the petitioner is at
liberty to raise all contentions in the pending
original petition itself. The Family Court,
untrammeled by any observations and findings in the
impugned order, shall dispose of the same in
accordance with law. Therefore, we find no reason
to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly,
the original petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ln
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOP NO.2146/2020 ON THE
FILES OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE DATED
04.05.2018 IN OP NO.1008/2017 ON THE FILES OF
FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MC(DV) NO.25/2019 PENDING
BEFORE JFMC, KAKKANAD.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.3569/2020 IN GOP
NO.2146/2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT TO EXT.P4 APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO EXT.P5 OBJECTION.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P6 REJOINDER.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2021 IN
EXT.P4 IA NO.3569/2020.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
