IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1982 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.527/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KOTTAYAM CMP.1642/2007 & 1643/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. DEVASIA..D. @ JOHNICHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.DEVASIA, ENTHAMANCHALIL HOUSE, ANVILASAM P.O., ANVILASAM VILLAGE, KUMILY, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 2. DEVASI @ KUTTAPPAN, S/O.DEVASIA,AGED 61 YEARS, ENTHAMANCHALIL HOUSE, ANVILASAM P.O., ANVILASAM VILLAGE, KUMILY, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 3. THOMAS E.D., S/O.DEVASIA, AGD 27 YEARS, ENTHAMANCHALIL HOUSE, ANVILASAM P.O., ANVILASAM VILLAGE, KUMILY, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & STATE: --------------- 1. ROSHNI JOSEPH AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.DEVASIA, PLANTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KALAKETTY P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1982 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kottayam in Crl.Appeal No.527 of 2007 which arose from the order of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kanjirapply in C.M.P.Nos.1642 of 2007 and 1643 of 2007. As per the impugned order, interim custody of the child aged two years and ten months at the relevant time has been given to respondent No.1, its mother. Petitioner No.1 is the father of the child and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his relatives. Learned magistrate has observed that there was no serious objection to giving interim custody of the child to respondent No.1. It is not disputed that the elder two children of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 are staying with the latter at Kanjirapply while petitioners are staying at Vandiperiyar. Learned magistrate observed that for the welfare of the child aged two years and ten months, it is appropriate that the child stays with its mother in the company of the elder children. Considering the request made by the petitioners learned magistrate has also directed that respondent No.1 should make arrangements to permit the Crl.R.P.No.1982/2009 2 petitioners visit the children once in every week. That direction takes care of the grievance of the petitioners for the time being. There is no reason to interfere with the interim order as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks