Nithya Prathapan vs Vinod Kumar.K.B
2021 Latest Caselaw 6264 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                    &

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

    MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942

                        OP (FC).No.105 OF 2021

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(G W)No.625/2020 DATED 06-02-2021 OF FAMILY
                      COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA


PETITIONERS:

      1        NITHYA PRATHAPAN
               AGED 32 YEARS
               D/O.LATE PRATHAPAN, ADVOCATE NITHIN NIVAS, PERINGANDU
               VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645.

      2        VAISHAK,
               AGED 3½ YEARS,
               REP.BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, NITHYA PRATHAPAN,
               NITHIN NIVAS, PERINGANDU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
               PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
               SHRI.ROOPKUMAR G.
               SHRI.JOHN K.J.

RESPONDENTS:

               VINOD KUMAR.K.B
               AGED 34 YEARS
               S/O.BALAN, KOTTAVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KURAMPALA, PARANTHAL
               (PO), KURMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA
               689 645.

               BY ADV. SRI.I.SREEHARI

     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD             ON
22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.105 OF 2021

                                            2




                                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of February 2021

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

This original petition was filed challenging

the order of interim custody of the child.

2. The 1st petitioner is the mother and the

respondent is the father of the child. Temporary

custody of the child was ordered to be given to the

father on every second Saturday from 10 AM till 5 PM

the ensuing Sunday is under challenge in this

original petition.

3. The Family Court, Pathanamthitta passed

such order giving custody of the child to the father

based on a compromise agreement entered into between

the parties.

4. The 1st petitioner questions the compromise

agreement. According to the 1st petitioner, the

compromise agreement was entered into by coercion.

5. We will not be justified in intervening

with such an order invoking jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The 1st OP (FC).No.105 OF 2021

petitioner can very well challenge the compromise

agreement itself before the Family Court,

Pathanamthitta. As of now, the custody of the child

is given to the father only on Second Saturday till

the following Sunday. The Court below also shall

refer the parties for mediation in the next posting

itself.

With the observation and directions as above,

this original petition is dismissed without

interfering with the impugned order.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS JUDGE SAS/22/02/2021 OP (FC).No.105 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.1/2020 IN OP 625/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN IA NO.1/2020 IN OP.NO.625/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 27.5.2020

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.2.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2020 IN OP NO.625/2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE