Kerala High Court
OP (FC)/704/2016 of REMYA Vs SURESH KUMAR on 30 December 2016
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938 OP (FC).No. 704 of 2016 (R) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 445/2014 of FAMILY COURT,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938
OP (FC).No. 704 of 2016 (R)
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 445/2014 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKADDATED 28-04-2016
PETITIONER:------------------
REMYA
AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.RAJAN, SURYA NAGAR,
KANJIKODE PO, PALAKKAD 678621
BY ADVS.SRI.RAJIT SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
SURESH KUMAR
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMAN, ERUMENI HOUSE, POOLAKKUNDU, KARIMBA PO, MANNAARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678597
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No. 704 of 2016 (R)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.NO. 445/2014 DATED28.04.2016 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
EXHIBTI P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA.NO. 2114/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTHEREIN SEEKING THE CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITSNIL
-----------------------
Rp
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
A.M. SHAFFIQUE & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
===========================OP (FC) No. 704 of 2016
==================
Dated this, the 30[th] day of December, 2016
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.
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
This original petition has been filed apprehending that thecustody of the minor child Aiswarya will be handed over torespondent when an application filed seeking interim custody as IANo. 2114/2016 is proposed to be heard by the Family Court on31/12/2016.
2. In fact, in Ext.P1 order dated 28/4/2016, visitation rightshad already been granted to the respondent, which reads as under:- “(a)The petitioner is allowed to take the custodyof the minor child, Aiswarya on all secondSaturdays, for the first four days during Onam andChristmas vacations and for the first four weeksduring summer vacations. The petitioner shall takethe child at 9 a.m from the house of the respondentand give back to the very same place before 5.00p.m on these days.
(b) Petitioner/respondent are permitted tocontact the child over phone every day whilethe child is in the custody of thepetitioner/respondentandthe petitioner/respondent shall make arrangementsfor the child to attend her father's/mother'sphone calls. In case of dispute regarding thevenue or for the implementation of the abovedirections, parties are at liberty to approach thiscourt for appropriate direction.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent never attempted to invoke visitation rights so far andsuddenly he had come out with an application seeking for custodyfrom 23/12/2016 from 31/12/2016. Petitioner apprehends thatorders will be passed by the Family Court without hearing thepetitioner. We do not think so. If the petitioner has objections tothe respondent having custody of the child, it is always open forthe petitioner to file appropriate objection, which shall beconsidered by the Family Court before passing orders.
With the above observation, original petition is closed.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE