IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27869 of 2010(R)
1. DEEPAK,S/O.GANGADHARAN, BUILDING NO.183,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BINDHU,D/O.THULASI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :29/10/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
***********************
W.P(C) No.27869 of 2010
*****************************
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
Petitioner is the father of a minor male child. The child is
in the custody of the respondent, the mother of the minor child.
O.P(G&W) 970 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner for custody of
the child during vacations and also for other incidental reliefs.
The petitioner is working in the Merchant Navy. According to
him, he comes to Kerala to spend his vacations.
2. During the pendency of that petition, I.A.No.874 of
2010 was filed by the petitioner for custody of the child during
summer vacation, 2010. The court below, by the impugned oder,
granted custody for two days from 12.05.2010 to 14.05.2010. It
is admitted at all hands that the petitioner could not take
advantage of the said order. He has now come up with this
petition to challenge the said order.
3. We wanted the learned counsel for the petitioner to
state specifically on which date he now wants custody of the child.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is now on board in a voyage and he is not able to specify the
W.P(C) No.27869 of 2010 2
time/the date on which the interim direction to give custody can
be implemented.
4. We do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in
the challenge raised in this Writ Petition. We are not persuaded
to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under
Article 227 against the impugned order Ext.P6.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there may be a general direction regarding handing over custody
of the child during all vacations. That is the very specific relief
claimed in the main petition. We are not satisfied that specific
direction in that regard need be issued now. We do, however,
make it clear that we expect the court below to dispose of O.P
(G&W) 970 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible. Before the final
disposal of that application, if there be any further interim
applications for custody filed during specified vacations, the
court below shall proceed to dispose of such applications
expeditiously. The court below must be conscious and cognizant
of the fact that such applications have to be disposed of
expeditiously, as the petitioner, a person employed in the
Merchant Navy, will not be able to wait indefinitely for the order
and its compliance.
W.P(C) No.27869 of 2010 3
6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)
rtr/