Sunitha vs Shinod
2021 Latest Caselaw 1521 Ker

OP (FC).No.439 OF 2017

                             1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                             &

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                 OP (FC).No.439 OF 2017(R)

 AGAINST THE ORDER in I.A. 3525/2016 IN   GOP 1816/2011 OF
                  FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR


PETITIONER/S:

           SUNITHA
           AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.AMMATT VIJAYAN, KURRUKKANARA
           DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY,THALAPPILLY
           TALUK, THALAPPILLY P.O.,KUNNAMKULAM-680503.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.RAJIT
           SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN

RESPONDENT/S:

           SHINOD
           AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.THALEKKARA VISWAMBARAN,
           KAKKAD DESOM AND VILLAGE,KUNNAMKULAM
           MUNCIPALITY, KUNNAMKULAM P.O., THALAPPILLY
           TALUK-680503.


     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON
14-01-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.439 OF 2017

                              2


                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of January 2021

C.S.Dias, J.

The Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed

by the Family Court in I.A No.3525/2016 in O.P.

No.1816/2011(Ext.P2). The respondent was granted

interim custody of his two minor children from 10

a.m. of every Second Saturday till 6 p.m on the

succeeding Sunday as per Ext.P1 order.

2. The petitioner had filed I.A No.3525/2016, to

modify Ext.P1 order.

3. The Family Court, after considering the

pleadings and materials on record, found that there

was no circumstance warranting modification of the

interim custody granted to the respondent. In the

said circumstances, the application was dismissed.

4. It is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order that the

petitioner has come up before this Court. OP (FC).No.439 OF 2017

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

6. On going through the findings of the Family

Court in the impugned order, we are of the considered

opinion that there is no circumstance warranting

interference with Ext.P2 order in exercise of the

supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227

of the Constitution of India, particularly at this

distance of time. The petitioner would be at liberty

to move the Family Court, in case of any change of

circumstances, to get the impugned order modified.

With the above observation, this Original Petition

is disposed of.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

ma/14.01.2021                          C.S.DIAS

                                        JUDGE
 OP (FC).No.439 OF 2017






                         APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1         THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

29.8.2014 IN G.O.P 1816/2011.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.3525/2016.