IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8848 of 2010(O)
1. T.S.SUNAND, S/O.SIVASAMY, AGED 39 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.R.SATHEESAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :17/03/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J
---------------------------
W.P.(C).No.8848 OF 2010
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4
order passed by the District Court, Alapuzha in I.A.No.773/09
in O.P.N.57/09.
2. The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.57/09 before
the District Court, Alapuzha. It is stated that his wife
Smt.Sindhu died on 4.1.2008. He is the guardian of minor
child, K.Harisankar. It is stated that out of the death of his
his wife relationship between him and relatives of his wife
became stained. His claim is that he was forced to leave the
house with the minor child to his house. O.S.180/09 had to
be filed by him against relatives of his late wife. Copy of the
plaint is produced and marked as Ext.P1. On 23.3.2009 the
father of late wife has moved O.P.57/09 before the District
Court, Alapuzha for appointing him as the guardian of
person and property of the minor child. Copy of the same is
W.P.(c) No.8848/10 2
produced as Ext.P2. Petitioner says that on receipt of the
same petitioner raised preliminary objection challenging
jurisdiction of the district court to deal with the matter.
According to the petitioner the Family Court alone has
jurisdiction to deal with the issue. Copy of the said petition
is produced and marked as Ext.P3.
3. Case was posted to 6.3.10 for hearing interlocutory
application. It is seen that his counsel was engaged n
other court and a lawyer was entrusted to represent him on
behalf. According to the petitioner the court below had
directed the petitioner to hand over the minor child to the
custody of the respondent for a period of one month during
the vacation. The petitioner says that the order was passed
without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, he challenges the
said order.
4. The learned District judge in the impugned order
has stated that the counsel for the respondent submitted
that he has no objection to handover the minor child,
Harisankar to the custody of the petitioner from 1.4.2010. to
W.P.(c) No.8848/10 3
30.4.2010. It was on the basis of a representation filed by
the counsel for the respondent/petitioner herein the order
was passed.
5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the statement in the
order the proper remedy is to move that court by way of
review and approach this court under Article 227 of
constitution of India. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner
to take appropriate steps, this petition is dismissed.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
Sou.