IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 7 of 2011(A)
1. RANJINI A.K., D/O.RAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAJAN, S/O.GANAPATHI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.SACHITHANANDA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :11/01/2011
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mat.Appeal No.7 of 2011
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of January 2011
J U D G M E N T
K.M.JOSEPH,J
The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She seeks to
challenge the common order passed in I.A.No.1896/2010 in
O.P.No.553/2009. O.P.No.553/2009 is filed by the respondent
for custody of the minor children and the same was allowed vide
Annexure B order on a joint statement filed by both parties,
stating that custody of the children can be granted to the
respondent. It is the case of the appellant that when the custody
of the children were handed over to the respondent, he had
harassed the children and all the three children ran away from
the house of the respondent/father and were found wandering
through the street, from where, Child Welfare Committee,
Malappuram took the children and after hearing the children
sent along with the grand mother considering the welfare of the
children. The order is produced as Annexure C. The children
are totally unprepared to go with the father.
Mat.Appeal No.7 of 2011 2
2. According to the appellant, the appellant filed
W.P.C.No.22179/2010 to quash the consent order in Annexure B.
The same was disposed of by Annexure A wherein the court
relegated the appellant to approach the Family Court to file a
fresh petition. Accordingly I.A.No.1896/2010 was filed by the
appellant. The appellant also filed I.A.No.1879/2010 for staying
the proceedings pursuant to Annexure B order. The respondent
filed I.A.No.1664/2010 for a direction to the appellant to comply
with Annexure B order. All the three applications were
considered and a common order was passed for which the
appellant has chosen to challenge the order passed in
I.A.No.1896/2010. The learned counsel for the respondent
would contend that the I.A itself is not maintainable.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent. In the impugned
order, the Family Court has noted at paragraph 5 that though
the I.As were posted for evidence, the mother has submitted that
she has no evidence to adduce either oral or documentary in
these three IAs and the father has produced and marked Exts.B1
to B7. According to the appellant, the matter was not posted for
evidence. We called for the report from the Family Court. It is
Mat.Appeal No.7 of 2011 3
inter alia stated that I.As were posted for enquiry. Both sides
were heard and posted for orders on 30/12/2010 and thus, there
was no specific posting for evidence. This is the report which is
submitted by the Sheristadar after verification. In the nature of
the case, we feel that an opportunity can be given to the
appellant for adducing whatever evidence the appellant wants to
adduce. However, we feel that the matter should also be
disposed of at the earliest.
4. Accordingly, the impugned order in I.A.No.1896/2010
in O.P.No.553/2009 of the Family Court, Malappuram is set
aside. The parties shall appear before the Family Court,
Malappuram on 15/01/2011. The court shall take up
I.A.No.1896/2010 and the parties shall be permitted to adduce
such evidence as they are advised to. The matter shall be
disposed of within a period of two weeks from 15/01/2011. We
further make it clear that it will be open to the respondent also
to contend that the I.A itself is not maintainable.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge
Mat.Appeal No.7 of 2011 4
Mat.Appeal No.7 of 2011 5
Mat.Appeal No.7 of 2011 6
K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
30/082010