Kerala High Court
Vineeth V.Pillai vs Preena on 25 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942
OP (FC).No.470 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 436/2020 OF FAMILY COURT,
PALAKKAD
PETITIONER:
VINEETH V.PILLAI
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, ALAPPATUMALAYIL, KUTTUR POST,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 106.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SMT.B.ANUSREE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
RESPONDENT:
PREENA
AGED 31 YEARS
W/O.VINEETH V.PILLAI AND D/O.NARAYANAN, NARAYANA
NIVAS, ALACHANKUDAM, CHITTUR COLLEGE POST, CHITTUR
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 014.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No.470 OF 2020
2
A MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & T.R.RAVI, JJ
--------------------------------
O.P.(FC) No.470 OF 2020
--------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
T.R.RAVI, J
The respondent in I.A. No. 2 of 2020 in O.P. No. 436 of
2020 on the files of the Family Court, Palakkad has filed
this Original Petition challenging the order dated
03.11.2020 in an interim application seeking custody of a
minor child. The marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized on 21.06.2011 and a boy child
named Vidhul Vineeth was born in the wedlock on
23.06.2015. The petitioner and the respondent started
living separately from 03.04.2019. According to the
respondent, the petitioner used to take the child along with
him to his residence as mutually agreed between the
parents. But, however, he had taken child on 10.03.2020
and not returned the child stating reasons of lock-down etc.
OP (FC).No.470 OF 2020
The petitioner contended that the respondent was not
looking after the child after 10.03.2020 and since she was
working by staying at her paternal house, she was not in a
position to look after the child and had hence, entrusted
the child with the petitioner. The Family Court, Palakkad by
Ext.P4 order dated 03.11.2020 allowed the interim
application. The Court granted interim custody of the child
to the respondent. The petitioner was directed to hand
over the custody to the mother and after such handing
over, the petitioner has been allowed custody of the child
for a period of three days from 2.00 pm of the Fridays
preceding the second Saturdays till 2.00 pm of the
Mondays succeeding the second Saturdays, every month.
Consequential directions regarding the manner of
production of the child and return of the child were also
issued. It was also specifically stated that if the
respondent declines to permit the petitioner to have
temporary custody, the petitioner will be at liberty to
OP (FC).No.470 OF 2020
approach the Family Court for enforcing the said portion of
the order. The petitioner/father has challenged the above
directions mainly on the contention that the interim order
will virtually amount to the final relief. We are not in a
position to agree with the Counsel for the petitioner. The
order only stipulates temporary arrangements and does not
finally disposed of the matter as contended. Sufficient
safeguards have been made in the order in order to ensure
that the petitioner/father also gets custody of the child for
three days during every month and in case, the said
direction is violated by the respondent, it is open for the
petitioner to approach the Family Court seeking remedial
measures. The nature of the directions would itself clearly
show that they are only temporary in nature and the
remedy of the petitioner to approach the Court for
modification is not in any way affected. We do not find any
illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the interim order
passed by the Family Court, Palakkad warranting an
OP (FC).No.470 OF 2020
interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Original Petition fails and is dismissed. We,
however hasten to add that the Family court, Palakkad
should not, in any way, be influenced by the findings and
observations, recorded for the purpose of granting interim
custody, while it is disposing of the original petition finally.
In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as
to costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
OP (FC).No.470 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 DATED 9/7/2020, TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.436 OF
2020, ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT,
PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P2 DATED 9/7/2020, TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2 OF
2020 IN O.P.NO.436 OF 2020 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P3 DATED 8/9/2020, TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER TO
I.A.NO.2 OF 2020 IN O.P.NO.436 OF 2020, ON
THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P4 DATED 3/11/2020, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
I.A.NO.2 OF 2020 IN O.P.NO.436 OF 2020, ON
THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.
