[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Charlse George vs Suji Raju on 30 January, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2026:KER:7661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 10TH MAGHA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 66 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2026 IN IA 3/2025 IN
OP NO.651 OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
CHARLSE GEORGE, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O GEORGE M, MAMPILLIL VEED, KALAVOOR P.O.,
KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK,
ALAPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688533.
BY ADV SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
1 SUJI RAJU, D/O. RAJU, SUJI HOUSE,
JUBILEE NAGAR, AMBALATHUM MOOLA,
ADIMALATHURA, CHOWARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695501.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:7661
OP (FC) NO. 66 OF 2026
-2-
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The controversy in this case originally
began with a Writ Petition filed by the
respondent - mother, seeking a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, against the petitioner herein qua their
child.
2. The aforesaid Writ Petition was
disposed of through Ext.P4 judgment of this
Court, wherein, we recorded that the child was
with the father; and, with the consent of the
parties, we directed that he will be with the
respondent - mother overnight on certain days.
3. Thereafter, on the imputation that the
wife was refusing to return the child, IA
No.1/2024 was filed in the said Writ Petition,
which culminated in Ext.P5 order; subsequent to
2026:KER:7661
OP (FC) NO. 66 OF 2026
which, the respondent - mother filed RP
No.1105/2024 seeking that Ext.P4 judgment be
reviewed, which was also dismissed.
4. Therefore, as matters now stand, going
by the orders we have issued, the child ought to
be with the father, with the mother enjoined
interim custody rights, as ordered in Ext.P4.
However, the petitioner now concedes that he
went abroad after Ext.P4, leaving the child in
the custody of his mother; but alleges that the
respondent - mother refused to return the child
to his grandmother, after she obtained his
interim custody in terms of Ext.P4 judgment.
5. It transpires that the petitioner,
thereupon, filed Ext.P7 application before the
learned Family Court seeking a modification of
the arrangement we made in Ext.P4, invoking the
liberty reserved to him to do so therein; but it
2026:KER:7661
OP (FC) NO. 66 OF 2026
has now culminated in Ext.P9, where he has been
granted only the right to talk to the child
through video conference.
6. The afore order is now assailed by the
petitioner before this Court, through this
Original Petition.
7. We have issued notice to the respondent
through Special Messenger, but it has been
returned with the endorsement "the respondent
was out of station." (sic)
8. As said above, going by our earlier
orders, the child ought to have been with the
father, with the mother exercising only interim
custody rights over him. However, even when we
considered IA No.1/2024 in the Writ Petition in
question, as evident from Ext.P5, we were told
that the mother has not returned the child to
the petitioner - father. We had thus given
2026:KER:7661
OP (FC) NO. 66 OF 2026
liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court
with a contempt of court case, which he did not
do; and in the alternative, he moved the learned
Family Court through Ext.P7.
9. We do not know how the child came to be
with the mother except from the assertion of the
petitioner; and more intriguing, is his
assertion that he is now abroad. Even this was
never told to us, and we proceeded in Ext.P4
judgment under the impression that he was away
only temporarily at that time, with the child at
least having his father with him; to thus give
interim custody rights to the mother.
10. However, now it appears that the
entire scenario, both factually and
circumstantially, has changed.
11. Viewed from that perspective, when we
see Ext.P9, the learned Family Court has found
2026:KER:7661
OP (FC) NO. 66 OF 2026
that the petitioner or his mother is unwilling
to take the child in permanent custody, in spite
of the earlier decree in OP(G&W)No.542/2023,
binding the parties. Of course, we are told that
the mother has filed an application to have this
decree set aside, asserting it to have been
issued ex parte; and that the same is pending.
12. In the meanwhile, the petitioner now
says that he has to go abroad not later than
05.02.2026.
13. In the circumstances afore presented,
we have little doubt that the learned Family
Court cannot be seen to have acted in error;
though the right of the petitioner to move it
appropriately is always open - which we see he
has done, by preferring Ext.P8 application,
wherein, he has sought interim custody of the
child for a short duration. His learned counsel
2026:KER:7661
OP (FC) NO. 66 OF 2026
says that this application has not been
considered even now.
14. Resultantly, though we refuse to
intervene with Ext.P9 order, we direct the
learned Family Court to take up Ext.P8
application and issue orders thereon, after
hearing both sides, as is appropriate, not later
than 03.02.2026.
This Original Petition is thus allowed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv JUDGE
2026:KER:7661
OP (FC) NO. 66 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO. 66 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
06.06.2024 IN IN OP 651/2024 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
20.03.2025 IN IN OP 651/2024 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.10.2022 IN OP(G&W) 542/2021 OF
FAMILY COURT ALAPPUZHA
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.07.2024 IN WP(CRL) 790/2024
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
18.10.2024 IN IA 1/2024 IN WP(CRL)
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
23.10.2024 IN RP 1105/2024 IN WP(CRL)
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
26.07.2025 IN IA 3/2025 IN IN OP
651/2024 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
ALAPPUZHA
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
05.01.2026 IN IA 1/2026 IN IN OP
651/2024 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
ALAPPUZHA
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
24.01.2026 IN IA 3/2025 IN IN OP
2026:KER:7661
OP (FC) NO. 66 OF 2026
651/2024 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
ALAPPUZHA
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
29.04.2025 ISSUED FROM THE VIZHINJAM
POLICE STATION
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DETAILS
ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 13.11.2024
ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE
POLICE CHIEF
