IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 120 of 2010(S)
1. SHAJI, S/O. KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SANDHYA, W/O. SHAJI, AGED 27 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.DINESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :24/02/2010
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
R.P. NO. 120 OF 2010
IN
W. P. C NO. 20970 OF 2008
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010.
O R D E R
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard counsel appearing for the review petitioner and counsel
appearing for the respondent. Petitioner and respondent are husband
and wife living separately. Various petitions for divorce, for restitution
of conjugal rights, for custody of child, for recovery of money are
pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad. When this Court was
moved in writ proceedings by the respondent, a Division Bench of this
Court granted respondent’s request for joint trial of all the connected
cases and besides granting the relief, this Court also gave day time
custody of the child to the petitioner on every Sunday. However, it is
specified in the judgment that custody of the child will be essentially
with the sister of the petitioner, and petitioner will be in the company
of the child during that period. Review petition is now filed stating that
the petitioner’s sister, who was entrusted with the custody of the child,
2
namely, Smt. Sulochana, is staying 25 KMs. away from the petitioner’s
house and therefore in the place of Sulochana, petitioner may be
permitted to send another sister to collect the child and take care of the
child in terms of the judgment. Further prayer is for extension of the
period of custody of the child during holidays. Counsel appearing for
the respondent strongly opposed and stated that all the cases pending
are ready for disposal. We notice that Division Bench of this Court
granted custody with the involvement of the elder sister of the
petitioner for reasons though not stated in detail in the judgment. We
do not think conditions need be modified particularly when
respondent’s counsel pointed out that the sister whom the petitioner
wants to substitute for taking custody of the child is fairly a young lady
and she may not show any interest in the child. We therefore reject the
contention of the review petitioner. However, we feel that in order to
put to an end to the litigation, all the cases should be tried together and
disposed of at the earliest. We direct the Family Court Judge,
Nedumangad to dispose of all the cases within a period of three months
from the date of production of a copy of this order. Both the petitioner
3
and respondent will co-operate in the proceedings before the Family
Court.
R.P. is dismissed.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
(HARUN-UL-RASHID)
Judge
kk