IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22476 of 2010(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDERIN IA 1528/2010 IN OP.1052/2008 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BEATRICE JOY @ BABY, W/O.P.V.JOY, C.C.14/635, KARUMPATHU PARAMBU, NAZARATH, MATTANCHERRY P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHANTA JOSEY, W/O.T.J.JOSEY, AGED 49 YEARS, THYVEETTIL HOUSE, C.C.NO.12/412-E, EAST NAZARETH, MATTANCHERRY P.O., COCHIN-2. (NOW TEMPORARILY RESIDING) C/O.STAFFORD FERNADEZ, DEBENHAM COTTAGE, SETTLEMENT SCHOOL, U.C.C.P.O., ALUVA - 683 102. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.22476 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The petitioner is the second respondent in Ext.P1 proceedings. The disputes between the parties relate inter alia to the custody of Shyama, the daughter of the respondent. The petitioner herein is the sister of the father of the child. The child has some mental deficit in faculties and the dispute includes the dispute regarding the custody of the said child. There are allied disputes also. 2. The respondent herein, the mother of the child, entertained an apprehension that the child may be removed out of India by the father of the child in collusion with the petitioner herein. She hence filed a petition seeking surrender of the passport of both the child and the father of the child. The court below, by the impugned order, directed surrender of the passport of the child. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all submits that the child has no valid passport now. The period of validity of the passport has already W.P.C.No.22476 of 2010 2 expired. If that be so, we find no reason why the petitioner should not produce that expired passport along with an affidavit before the Family Court. The petitioner can certainly do that. We find no merit in the challenge raised in the writ petition. If the period of validity of the passport has really expired and is not any more valid, the petitioner or her brother need not also keep the passport with them. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and her brother, the father of the child, may want to renew the passport. If that be so, a specific request by an application can be made before the Family Court and the Family Court shall pass appropriate orders. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant interference invoking our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. This writ petition is in these circumstances dismissed but subject to the observations made above. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.22476 of 2010 3 W.P.C.No.22476 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.22476 of 2010 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 19/07/2010