IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN Wednesday, the 30th January, 2008/ 10th Magha, 1929. W.P(Crl) No. 14 of 2008 PETITIONERS: Babu.C.V., Aged 36 years, S/o.Vava, Kavanakkeril House, Thekkenada.P.O., Vazhamana, Naduvile Village, Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District, Kerala State. By Adv. Sri.P.M.Natesan & Sri.K.P.Prathapan. RESPONDENTS: 1. Ambareesh.K.S., S/o.Sekharan, Aged 25 years, Karimadom Thazhathu, Chempu Village, Enady.P.O., Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District. 2. The Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom Police Station. 3. The District Superintendent of Police, Kottayam. W.P.(Crl) No.14 of 2008 :-2-: 4. The Director General of Police (Law and Order), Thiruvananathapuram. R2 TO R4 By Govt. Pleader Sri.Kammappu. This W.P(C) having been finally heard on 30.1.2008, the Court on the same day delivered the following: APPENDIX (WP(Crl) No. 14 OF 2008) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: Copy of of birth certificate of petitioner's minor son dtd.7.11.2005 issued from the Grama Panchayat Office, Arpookara. Ext.P2: Copy of the complaint dtd.2.1.2008 submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. -True Copy- P.A.to Judge. P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl).No. 14 of 2008 - S --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Raman,J: The petitioner, alleging that his wife and his minor child aged 5 years are under illegal custody of the first respondent, has filed this writ petition. 2. We have passed a detailed order yesterday (29.1.2008) wherein we have recorded the result of the interaction made by the parties. The alleged detenue appeared before us and we have interacted with her. She has stated that she is not under illegal custody of anybody as alleged and she is now residing with her parents. We have also interacted with her parents. 3. It appears that the petitioner's wife and child had gone away from the residence of the petitioner. The first respondent- Sri.K.S.Ambareesh is closely related with the petitioner's wife who is none other than the petitioner's wife's mother's sister's son. The conduct of the first respondent with the petitioner's wife, of course, has contributed to the mis-understanding between the WP(Crl) NO. 14 of 2008 :-2-: petitioner and his wife. It was agreed by the parties that the petitioner's wife will continue to reside with her parents, for the time being and that she will be joining with the husband soon. Since the petitioner's wife is not under illegal custody and she wants to be with her parents for the time being and she being a major, no grounds exist for issuing any further direction. She is set free. Now the question arises regarding the custody of the minor child. Admittedly, the child is with its mother and grand parents. The child is now five years old and is studying in the school. 4. In such circumstances, it may not be possible to enter any finding without taking further evidence. Prima facie, we find that it will be more in the interest of the child that the child should be with the mother. However, the petitioner will have visitorial rights and he will be free to make visits for seeing the child at the residence of the petitioner's wife's father where they propose to continue to reside. This shall not be objected to by the petitioner's wife or her parents. We also leave WP(Crl) NO. 14 of 2008 :-3-: open the right of the petitioner to approach the Family Court if there is any further right to be redressed in this regard. We make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of the parties in mutually agreeing for any arrangement with regard to the custody of the child. The writ petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge V.K.MOHANAN, Judge Mbs/ WP(Crl) NO. 14 of 2008 :-4-: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P.NO. OF 2001 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T WP(Crl) NO. 14 of 2008 :-5-: DATED: -2007