IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16298 of 2009(R)
1. ABDUL MUKTHAR, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SABEENA, AGED 27 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :12/06/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(C)NO. 16298 OF 2009
============================
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2009
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The petitioner and the respondent are spouses. Marriage
still subsists, though it is in doldrums. The wife has already
initiated proceedings for divorce and also for return of money and
for maintenance. Not to be left behind, the petitioner-father has
promptly filed an application for custody of the 3 = old minor
son. He also applied for interim custody of the 3 = year old
minor son from the mother. By the impugned order, the learned
Judge made arrangements regarding custody/visitation pending
disposal of the O.P. The petitioner was granted interim custody
from 10.00 a.m. on 25-5-2009 till 5.00 p.m. on 26-5-2009. It
was further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to have
access to the child on the 3rd and 4th Saturdays of every month
hereafter from 10.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. from the court premises.
WPC.16298/2009 -2-
After the order the 3rd and 4th Saturdays are yet to come.
2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
order and prays that the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be invoked to
interfere with Ext.P6 order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
We are not satisfied that the impugned order demands or
warrants any interference invoking the extra ordinary
constitutional jurisdiction. The order does appear to us to be
absolutely fair, reasonable and just. At any rate, there is no
warrant for interfering with the same under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
4. The leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that even
this order is not being complied with by the respondent. The
Family Court has passed the order. The matter is still pending
before the Family Court. We will not lightly to assume that the
Family Court will be unequal the task and to challenge before it
to enforce the order passed by it. Every endeavour must be
made by the Family Court to enforce the order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
WPC.16298/2009 -3-
wants the order to be modified so that he can have greater
interaction of the child. The present arrangement must be
permitted to be worked out and if the petitioner wants to modify
the order, he can certainly approach the Family Court, with
appropriate request.
6. With the above observations, this writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
R. BASANT, JUDGE
Sd/-
M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE
ks. TRUE COPY
P.S.TO JUDGE
WPC.16298/2009 -4-