Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38210/2008 of SHANDO Vs SHIJI on 30 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38210 of 2008(S) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38210 of 2008(S)
--------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.6706/2008 IN
O.P.NO.99/2006 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM.
....................
PETITIONER:
-------------------
SHANTO, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.T.S.KURAIPE,
RESIDING AT THARAYIL HOUSE,
CHERUKADAPPURAM NORTH, KUTHIATHODU (PO), PUTHENVELIKKARA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT,
SRI.K.N.ABHILASH,
SMT.R.LEELA.
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT:
-------------------------------------------- SHIJI THOMAS, D/O.THOMAS, CHIRAYATHU HOUSE, DESOM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM.
BY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
prv.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
&
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =W.P.(C).No.38210 of 2008-S
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 30[th]day of December, 2008.JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. By the order impugned, the Family Court hasrefused an application for interim relief soughtfor by the petitioner, the father of two minorchildren aged around 12 and 11 years. Thecustody has been refused by stating certainreasons. We are not, as of now, advised to gointo the correctness or otherwise of thosereasons, in so far as their factual contents areconcerned. We are, however, satisfied that thecourt below has not recorded any desire from theside of the children to be with the father eitherduring the Christmas or during the new year eve WP(C)38210/2008
-: 2 :-
and to move away from the mother with whom they are now residing. We, therefore, find nojurisdictional error or legal infirmity in theimpugned order warranting exercise of power underArticle 226 or 227 of the Constitution also.
2. We, however, make it clear that if the petitionerseeks for relief in relation to any future lap ofholidays or week ends, the learned Family Judgewill ensure that the views of the children arealso obtained in the matter.
Subject to what is aforesaid, this writ petitionis dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.
Sha/301208
Sd/-