IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(Crl.).No. 97 of 2011(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- HARI G.S., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, HARI BHAVAN, NEAR VIJAY MOHINI MILLS, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.P.M.SANEER SRI.V.S.THOSHIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NISHA CHANDRAN, D/O.MOHANA CHANDRAN, NOW WORKING AS L.D.C., OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, FIRST MAIN ROAD, KK NAGAR, MADURAI- 625020. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P K BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (Crl.) No. 97 of 2011 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Joseph J., The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers: “(i) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to physically bring the minors before this Court in the event of the 2nd respondent failing to produce the minors before this Court and thereafter to give custody of the minors of the petitioner. (ii) To realise the cost of proceedings from the 2nd respondent”. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. They were married according to the Hindu law. There are two minor children born, W.P. (Crl.) No. 97 of 2011 S :2: one female and the other male. The daughter is aged 10 years and the son is 7 years. They lived a happy family life at Thiruvananthapuram till 4.1.2011. It is stated further stated that without the knowledge of the petitioner, the second respondent managed to get a transfer to Madurai. She had shifted her residence and took the minor children also with her. She transferred the children from Kendriya Vidyala, Trivandrum. Thereafter it is stated that she had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005, through her power of attorney holder and obtained an interim order restricting the petitioner from contacting the second respondent or communicating with the minor children. The petitioner has no communication with the children. He does not know the whereabouts of the children. Hence the petitioner approached this Court. 3. Essentially we feel that this is a matter where the petitioner must be relegated to approach a competent forum under the general law in regard to the custody of the children. Without prejudice to W.P. (Crl.) No. 97 of 2011 S :3: the right of the petitioner to approach a competent forum and seek appropriate orders from the competent forum with regard to the custody and visitorial rights of the minor children, if so advised, the Writ Petition is closed. K.M. JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/