IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 249 of 2009()
1. ANJUMOL T.RAJU, D/O.T.S.RAJU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNMESH PAUL, S/O.PAUL, AGED 39 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI GEO PAUL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :03/04/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
MAT. APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2009
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The respondent/mother is the appellant and the bone of contention is
the custody of the minor child aged about 8 years. The father/respondent
herein had filed an application for custody of the child and that
application was dismissed subject to observations/directions. The mother,
the appellant herein, was permitted to keep the child in her custody, but
the respondent/father was permitted to have custody/company of the child
during specified periods subject to certain conditions. It was directed that
Life Insurance Policy for an assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which will
mature at the 20th year of the child must be taken by the father and the
policy must be assigned in the name of the child. It was also directed that
the premium due must be paid as and when it becomes due. It was
observed that the father’s right to get custody of the child under the order ,
a copy of which is produced as Annexure 1, will be subject to compliance
of these conditions.
Mat. Appeal No. 249/2009 2
2. The order was passed on 14.1.2005. It was challenged. But, the
mother was not successful in the challenge. For the last about three years,
the conditions are being complied with, it is submitted.
3. Be that as it may, as per the order, the respondent/father is
entitled to the custody of the child during this mid summer vacation. He
filed an application for enforcement of Annexure 1 order regarding
handing over the child to his custody. That application was resisted by
the appellant/mother on the ground that the conditions have not been
complied with.
4. What is the non-compliance? It is submitted that the Life
Insurance Policy has been taken as directed. But, it is contended that the
premium due has not been paid in due time. Data was placed before the
Family Court to show that there was a delay in payment of the premium
and that premium had been paid with late fee. We are satisfied that the
mere delay in paying the premium cannot cost the respondent his right to
have custody of the child as per the direction in Annexure 1 order.
Mat. Appeal No. 249/2009 3
5. The other contention raised is that the policy has not been
assigned in the name of the child. Learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the rules of the policy did not permit or enable the respondent
to make such an assignment. The respondent had entered into
correspondence with the Life Insurance Corporation and it is submitted
that the Life Insurance Corporation has now agreed to assign the policy in
the name of the child. We will assume that because of the above difficulty,
the policy was not assigned in the name of the child. But, even that
according to us, is no valid reason to deny the respondent his right to have
custody of the child as per Annexure 1 order. Learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the respondent shall later produce before the
Family Court the necessary documents to confirm that the directions in
Annexure 1 order has been complied with in letter and spirit.
6. It is not necessary for us to go into that contention in detail. We
are satisfied that the impugned order does not, at any rate, warrant any
interference. The learned Judge of the Family Court had fixed 30.3.2009
as the date for production of the child before the Family Court. That date
has now expired. We direct that the child be handed over to the
respondent by the appellant as directed by the Family Court on next
Mat. Appeal No. 249/2009 4
Monday, i.e. 6.4.2009 at 10.30 a.m.
7. This Matrimonial Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
Mat. Appeal No. 249/2009 5
R. BASANT &
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
MAT. APPEAL NO.249/09
JUDGMENT
3rd April, 2009