Bhavya S vs Sujesh J
2021 Latest Caselaw 9747 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                   &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

     TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

                       OP (FC).No.111 OF 2021

   AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1564/2020 IN OPGW 745/2020 DATED
               28.01.2021 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM


PETITIONER:

              BHAVYA S.
              AGED 25 YEARS
              D/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, ELAPPADIYIL HOUSE, NEAR AMEDA
              TEMPLE, MLA ROAD, UDAYAMPEROOR, PIN 682 307,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.V.PAULSON
              SRI.BIJU MARTIN

RESPONDENT:

              SUJESH J.
              AGED 36 YEARS
              S/O. JANARDHANAN, M.M OASIS, NO. 4, LAKSHMI NAGAR,
              GERUGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 128
              NOW RESIDING AT AMBADATH HOUSE, NEAR KUNNAMKULAM
              COURT, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 503

               BY ADV. SMT.SIKHA G.NAIR

     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD              ON
23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(FC).No.111/2021
                                      2




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of March 2021

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J

This original petition was filed challenging Ext.P3

order of the Family Court, Ernakulam which reads thus:

"Petitioner represented. Respondent prays. No objection is seen filed yet. Petitioner insistently prays for an interim order.

Hence the petitioner is permitted to make video call to the minor child on every Saturday between 8.30 to 9 am until further order."

2. The petitioner herein is the mother of the child

and respondent is the father. The Family Court permitted

the father only to interact with the child through video

call on every Saturday between 8.30 am to 9 am. We do not

find any infirmity or illegality in the said order. The

child needs to be familarised with the father. Only for

that purpose, the above order was passed.

The O.P.(FC) fails and hence dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Sd/-

                                          DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

kp               True copy

                   P.A. To Judge
 O.P.(FC).No.111/2021


                             APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1             TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO. 188/2020 FILED

BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P NO.

289/2020 IN M.C 27 OF 2020 DATED 03-02-2020

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO. 1564/2020 IN O.P (G AND W) NO. 745/2020 DATED 28-01-

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FIELD BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A NO. 1564/2020 IN O.P (G AND W) NO. 745/2020 DATED 29-01-2021