Haseena Rani vs Nanoosh Kumar Eu
2024 Latest Caselaw 32237 Ker

Kerala High Court

Haseena Rani vs Nanoosh Kumar Eu on 8 November, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

                                                     2024:KER:83676

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                  &
         THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
 FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
                     OP (FC) NO. 671 OF 2024
 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2024 IN I.A.NO.7/2024 IN OPGW
         NO.64 OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

         xxxxx
         xxxxx

         BY ADVS.
         M.G.SREEJITH
         VIDYAJITH M.
         BINCY JOSE
         ROJIN DEVASSY




RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

         xxxx
         xxxxx

         BY ADVS.
         KALAM PASHA B.
         VISHAKHA J. - K/000850/2024
         HASNA ASHRAF T.A - K/1156/2021
         JUVYRIA A.A. - K/002434/2024
         SRI P M SHAMEER-GP


     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2024,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                    2024:KER:83676
OP(FC) 671/24
                                 2


                             JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

This petitioner challenges Exts.P8, P13 & P14 orders of

the learned Family Court, Mavelikkara.

2. The petitioner is the former wife of the respondent herein

and they have a child aged 1½ years in their union. The

controversy between the parties is with respect to the custody of

the said child; and it transpires that the respondent-husband filed

I.A.No.2 of 2024 and I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.P(G&W) No.64 of 2024

- filed by him earlier before the learned Family Court, seeking

permanent custody of the child - seeking her interim custody and

also to modify Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Court on

22.05.2024, whereby, he was given overnight interim custody of

the child on certain days.

3. The learned Family Court, Mavelikkara, allowed the

aforementioned applications through Ext.P8 order, prima facie

finding that the mother is suffering from psychiatric disorders;

against which, she filed I.A.No.7 of 2024 seeking a review, which 2024:KER:83676 OP(FC) 671/24

has been dismissed through Ext.P13, and consequently, the learned

Court passed Ext.P14 order, directing a Woman Police Officer to

take custody of the child and to hand him over to the father.

4. The petitioner - mother assails all the afore orders on the

ground that the assumption of the learned Family Court that, she

is suffering from psychiatric disorders, is unfortunate and without

any factual basis; and thus prays that all of them be set aside,

particularly because, the child is unwilling to go to his father,

being very young. She also has a case that the child is still

nursing, requiring to be breastfed; and hence that to remove him

from his mother would cause her severe trauma and stress.

5. However, the case of the respondent is to the contrary.

He asserts that the petitioner - mother is suffering from deep

Postpartum Disorder and shows no affinity to the child. He relies

on certain documents which he had produced before the learned

Family Court in substantiation, particularly Ext.P9 Medical Report.

6. We have heard Sri.M.G.Sreejith - learned counsel for 2024:KER:83676 OP(FC) 671/24

the petitioner and Sri.Kalam Pasha B. - learned counsel for the

respondent.

7. As we have already said above, the bone of contention

of the parties - in a manner of speaking - is the Medical Records

of the petitioner-wife, which have been produced as Exts.P6 and

P7. When one examines the said records - even assuming that

legal validity can be attached to it - it is luculent that they are of

February 2023, immediately after the petitioner gave birth to the

child; and it only indicates that she was suffering from postpartum

depression, thus showing some alienation to the baby at that time.

8. However, it must be borne in mind that, it is now well

settled through scientific studies and assessments, that postpartum

depression is rather common in some women and that this is not

a situation that will continue forever, but most of the time being

temporary, for a short duration. To allege that the petitioner-wife

is still suffering from postpartum depression and is even unwilling

to nurse the child, certainly requires to be established through 2024:KER:83676 OP(FC) 671/24

cogent and reliable methods; but, in our firm view, could not have

been so declared by the learned Family Court, as has been done in

Ext.P8 order, merely based on the afore records.

9. That said, it is interesting that, when the parties

appeared before us on 04.11.2024, along with the child, the

petitioner-mother offered and insisted that she be ordered to be

evaluated medically by this Court, so that she will be able to

substantiate that she is not suffering from any psychiatric or

cognitive impairments as of now. We, therefore, indited an order,

with the consent of both sides, on the afore date, which is as

under:

Sri.M.G.Sreejith - learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, asserted that his client is without any cognitive or psychological impairment and that she is willing to have herself assessed by a competitive Medical Board for this purpose. He added that this offer is not being made because she concedes to any contention of the respondent, but only because she wants to find a quietus to the allegation that she is not well. He thus requested this Court that a Medical Board attached to the Medical College, Ernakulam, be ordered to convene immediately, since she is now working in Chennai and can remain here only for the next one or two days.

2. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, submitted that he has contacted the Medical Superintendent of the Government Medical College, who has told him that 2024:KER:83676 OP(FC) 671/24

the parties can appear in his office at 11 AM tomorrow, and that the Board will evaluate the petitioner.

3. In the afore circumstances, we direct the petitioner to mark appearance at the office of the Superintendent, Medical College, Ernakulam at 10.30 AM tomorrow.

We request the Superintendent to make available a report of the evaluation of the petitioner through the learned Government Pleader, by the next posting date.

Show the name of the learned Government Pleader in the cause list.

List for further consideration on 08.11.2024.

10. The Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical

College, Ernakulam, has now made available a report of evaluation

of the petitioner and the relevant portion of the same is extracted

below:

As per the above references Ms.Haseena Rani, 28 years and Mr.Nanoosh Kumar E.U., 34 years appeared before the Medical Board on 05.11.2024.

History was obtained from both parties. There were no other reliable informants to clarify the history.

Mental Status Evaluation of Ms.Haseena Rani, 28 years (OP No. T114400511240038) on 05.11.2024.

She is conscious and in touch with surroundings. Psychomotor activity is normal. Talk is relevant and coherent. No formal thought disorder, abnormality of stream of thought or delusions elicited. She expresses concerns regarding the current life situations. Mood is Euthymic and affect appropriate. No perceptual abnormalities elicited. Higher mental functions are grossly intact.

Impression No evidence of any major psychiatric disorder obtained during evaluation.

For a final opinion board suggests:

2024:KER:83676 OP(FC) 671/24

1) Clarification of history from reliable sources other than clients.

2) Detailed psychological assessment by psychometry and personality inventory.

3) Serial MSE and observation preferably as in patient.

11. It is thus obvious that the presumption of the learned

Family Court regarding the alleged psychiatric issues of the

petitioner cannot be found favour with, at least as of now,

without further evidence and assessment.

12. In such perspective, we asked Sri.Kalam Pasha -

learned counsel for the respondent-father, whether his client is still

insisting that the child be handed over to him at this stage, to

which, his reply was that he is also fully conscious that a child of

this age would require its mother in normal circumstances; but

that what he presents in this case is a peculiar scenario where the

mother is unable to take care of the child and therefore, that his

client apprehends that the latter's life itself will be in danger.

13. We must say that we cannot find the afore

apprehension to be fully tenable, at least from a prima facie point

of view; though, it will be open to the parties to lead evidence in 2024:KER:83676 OP(FC) 671/24

corroboration of their respective plea at the relevant time.

14. As matters now stand, the report from the Department

of Psychiatry, Government Medical College, Ernakulam - at least

to substantial extent - will assuage the fear expressed by the

respondent; and we are of the preliminary view that there is no

reason why we should discard it, though we do not think that the

litigation before the learned Family Court should be governed by it

exclusively.

15. To paraphrase, the evaluation of the petitioner by the

Government Medical College is only for our assessment and we

leave the parties to invoke every other liberty that may be

available to them, when the matter is finally disposed of by the

learned Family Court.

16. In summation, we cannot find favour with Ext.P8 and

consequently, Exts.P13 and P14 orders would also fail.

Resultantly, we allow this Original Petition and set aside

Ext.P8, as also Exts.P13 and P14; with a consequential direction to 2024:KER:83676 OP(FC) 671/24

the learned Family Court to dispose of O.P.(G&W)64/2024, after

affording necessary opportunity to both sides, untrammeled by our

observations herein, as expeditiously as is possible.

Needless to say, if there should be a change of circumstances

in future, or if the respondent is to believe that further orders are

required, he is at full liberty to move the learned Family Court

appropriately; in which event, it will be decided in terms of our

directions above.

Since we are sure that the privacy of the parties in this case

is required to be protected, we direct the Registry to mask their

identities in all papers. Necessary steps to ensure this shall be

taken forthwith.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE SP/RR 2024:KER:83676 OP(FC) 671/24

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 671/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN OP(G&W) NO. 64/2024 IN THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA

Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.2/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO.

64/2024 IN THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA

Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22-05-2024 IN IA NO.2/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO. 64/2024 IN THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA

Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY IA NO.3/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO.

64/2024 IN THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA

Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.3/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO. 64/2024 IN THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA

Exhibit -P6 TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 10- 02-2023 ISSUED FROM GENERAL HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM

Exhibit -P7 TRUE COPY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT DATED 17-03-2023 BEARING OP NO.5266

Exhibit -P8 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 12-09- 2024 IN IA NO.2/2024 & IA NO.3/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO.64/2024 IN THE FILES FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA

Exhibit -P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 25-10-2024

Exhibit -P10 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR DIVORCE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT DATED 27-04-2024 2024:KER:83676 OP(FC) 671/24

Exhibit -P11 TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION FILED AS IA NO.7/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO.64/2024 IN THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA

Exhibit -P12 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.8/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO.64/2024 IN THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA

Exhibit -P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.7/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO.64/2024 IN THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA DATED 09-10-2024

Exhibit -P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.8/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO.64/2024 IN THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA DATED 09-10-2024

Exhibit -P15 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.351/2023 IN THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R1(b) The true coy of Psychological Report issued by the Clinical Psychologist of Mibo Health and Happiness Care Pvt.Ltd., Edappally dated 17.03.2023

Exhibit R1(a) The true copy of the birth certificate of the child issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Cochin Corporation dated 23.05.2023

Exhibit R1(c) The true copy of Medical Report issued from the General Hospital, Ernakulam dated 10.02.2023

Exhibit R1(d) The true copy of the receipt issued by the office of the District police Chief, Alappuzha

Exhibit R1(e) The true copy of the Certificate issued by Dr.A.J.John, Psyciatrist, Nakkada Mission Hospital, Ramanchira, Thiruvalla dated 30.08.2022 2024:KER:83676 OP(FC) 671/24

Exhibit R1(f) The photographs of the child with burn injuries

Exhibit R1(h) The true copy of the order in O.P. (FC) No.584/2024 dated 13.09.2024

Exhibit R1(i) The true copy of the receipt issued by Meadows Post Natal Care, Kottakkal dated 11.03.2023

Exhibit R1(j) The true copy of the judgment passed by the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam in O.S. 351 / 2023 dated 21-8-2024

Exhibit R1(k) The true copy of matrimonial advertisement published by the petitioner

Exhibit R1(l) Two of audio clippings containing the voice message from the petitioner