Kerala High Court
Soji Somaraj vs K. Ramesh Babu on 3 September, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2024:KER:66802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 12TH BHADRA,
1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.04.2014 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OP(G&W) NO.1084 OF 2012
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SOJI SOMARAJ, MANI MANDIRAM,
WARD NO 9, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, EZHUKONE P.O,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 505.
BY ADV LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
RESPONDENTS/CR.PETITIONERS:
1 K. RAMESH BABU,
S/O KRISHNAN, 'ANUPAMA', T.C 30/796,
PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695024.
2 V. GIRIJA,
W/O RAMESH BABU, 'ANUPAMA', T.C 30/796,
PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024.
3 ANOOP, S/O RAMESH BABU,
'ANUPAMA', T.C 30/796, PETTAH P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024.
2024:KER:66802
Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020
-2-
4 PAVITHRA, D/O SOJI SOMARAJAN,
(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY K. RAMESH BABU,
'ANUPAMA', T.C 30/796, PETTAH P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024.
BY ADV SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.09.2024, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.58/2020, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:66802
Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 12TH BHADRA,
1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.04.2014 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN THE COUNTER CLAIM IN OP(G&W)
NO.1084 OF 2012
APPELLANT/CR.PETITIONER:
SOJI SOMARAJ, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O SOMARAJAN, MANI MANDIRAM,
WARD NO 9, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, EZHUKONE P.O,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 505.
BY ADV LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 K. RAMESH BABU, AGED 72,
S/O KRISHNAN, 'ANUPAMA', T.C 30/796,
PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695024.
2024:KER:66802
Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020
-4-
2 V. GIRIJA, AGED 68,
W/O RAMESH BABU, 'ANUPAMA', T.C 30/796,
PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024.
3 ANOOP, AGED 38, S/O RAMESH BABU,
'ANUPAMA', T.C 30/796, PETTAH P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024.
4 PAVITHRA, D/O SOJI SOMARAJAN,
(MINOR), AGED 9 YEARS AND 10 MONTHS,
REPRESENTED BY K. RAMESH BABU, 'ANUPAMA',
T.C 30/796, PETTAH P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024.
BY ADV SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.09.2024, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.586/2014, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:66802
Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020
-5-
JUDGMENT
[Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020]
Devan Ramachandran, J.
These Appeals are being considered
together because, in one among them - namely
Mat.Appeal No.586/2014, the judgment of the
learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram,
relating to the custody of a child is impugned;
while, in the other, namely Mat.Appeal
No.58/2020, the order of the said Court in a
counterclaim in the said Original Petition is
under challenge.
2. It is not necessary for us to
record the facts in detail because, both sides
agree that the father of the child is now
implicated in a chargesheet under the provisions
2024:KER:66802
Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020
of Section 498A and Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC). It is also without contest
that the essential allegation against the father
is that he abetted the suicide of his wife,
namely the mother of the child. Of course, this
may not be construed to mean that we have found
either way in this judgment, since it is
unnecessary for us to do so.
3. Suffice to say, as matters now
stand, the father is charged as afore and he is
facing trial; and it is also conceded that the
same is now continuing.
4. We notice from the impugned
judgment that the learned Family Court has found
- in our view correctly - that, when the father
has been chargesheeted in the afore manner, the
welfare of the child cannot be found to be safe
2024:KER:66802
Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020
in his hands.
5. Indubitably, if the father is to be
acquitted, it would present a completely
different scenario; and this is also without
contest between the parties, particularly when,
even going by the judgment, the learned Family
Court appears to have made the arrangement
therein qua the custody of the child almost as
an interim arrangement, though couched in a
final judgment, solely for the reason that the
father has not yet been acquitted of the
criminal charges.
6. Pending these Appeals, however, it
also transpires that certain issues arose as to
the right of the father in the property of the
deceased mother; and a consensus was expressed
and recorded by this Court in the order dated
2024:KER:66802
Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020
06.04.2022, that the father will execute two
documents in favour of his daughter, releasing
all his rights over the property in question. It
was, thereafter, recorded in the order dated
13.02.2024 that, one of the documents has been
executed by him, while the other has not been.
7. Today, Sri.Liji J.Vadakkedom -
learned counsel for the petitioner in both
cases, informs us that his client will execute
the remaining document and deliver it to the
respondents - grandparents of the child, within
a period of one month from today, namely on or
before 03.10.2024.
8. That being said, all which now
remains are the liberties which are to be
reserved in favour of the parties, if any change
of circumstances is to happen in future,
2024:KER:66802
Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020
particularly if the father is to obtain
honourable acquittal.
9. At this juncture, it must be
remembered that every order of custody by the
learned Family Court is essentially
interlocutory in nature; and hence, any of the
parties can move it for modification through a
fresh application, in the event of the factual
circumstances and factors are substantially
modified or altered.
10. Indubitably, if the father is to be
acquitted, it will certainly present a
compelling change of circumstances, which may
enable him to move the learned Family Court.
In the afore circumstances, we close these
Appeals, confirming the impugned orders,
primarily for the reason that the father is
2024:KER:66802
Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020
still chargesheeted and facing trial; however
subject to certain modifications as both sides
now agree to.
We notice from the impugned judgment that
visitation of the father to the daughter has
been reserved in a particular manner; but it is
now acceded to by Sri.M.Balagovindan - learned
counsel for the respondents, that the child can
be with the father on the second half of the
Onam and Christmas holidays, as also for the
first ten and last ten days of the summer
vacation, as per the school calendar.
Since the parties are in consent, we order
that the directions in the impugned judgment
regarding the visitation of the child and
custody in favour of the father will stand
modified as afore.
2024:KER:66802
Mat.Appeal Nos.586/2014, 58/2020
After we dictated this part of this
judgment, Sri.M.Balagovindan - learned counsel
for the respondents, submitted that the child is
now over 14 years of age and has very specific
opinions for herself. He submitted that,
therefore, liberty may be reserved to his client
to approach this Court again in these Appeals,
if she is unwilling to go with the father for
any reason. This liberty is fully reserved.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv JUDGE
