IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 249 of 2009() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/03/2009 IN E.A. NO.29/2009 INEA 40/2005 IN EP 10/05 IN OP.972/2002 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- ANJUMOL T.RAJU, D/O.T.S.RAJU, AGED 35 YEARS, MONS COTTAGE, VARAPPUZHA P.O., MUTTINAKAM KARA, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- UNMESH PAUL, S/O.PAUL, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULAKAVIL HOUSE, PAMPAKUDA P.O., ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI GEO PAUL THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- MAT. APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The respondent/mother is the appellant and the bone of contention is the custody of the minor child aged about 8 years. The father/respondent herein had filed an application for custody of the child and that application was dismissed subject to observations/directions. The mother, the appellant herein, was permitted to keep the child in her custody, but the respondent/father was permitted to have custody/company of the child during specified periods subject to certain conditions. It was directed that Life Insurance Policy for an assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which will mature at the 20th year of the child must be taken by the father and the policy must be assigned in the name of the child. It was also directed that the premium due must be paid as and when it becomes due. It was observed that the father's right to get custody of the child under the order , a copy of which is produced as Annexure 1, will be subject to compliance of these conditions. Mat. Appeal No. 249/2009 2 2. The order was passed on 14.1.2005. It was challenged. But, the mother was not successful in the challenge. For the last about three years, the conditions are being complied with, it is submitted. 3. Be that as it may, as per the order, the respondent/father is entitled to the custody of the child during this mid summer vacation. He filed an application for enforcement of Annexure 1 order regarding handing over the child to his custody. That application was resisted by the appellant/mother on the ground that the conditions have not been complied with. 4. What is the non-compliance? It is submitted that the Life Insurance Policy has been taken as directed. But, it is contended that the premium due has not been paid in due time. Data was placed before the Family Court to show that there was a delay in payment of the premium and that premium had been paid with late fee. We are satisfied that the mere delay in paying the premium cannot cost the respondent his right to have custody of the child as per the direction in Annexure 1 order. Mat. Appeal No. 249/2009 3 5. The other contention raised is that the policy has not been assigned in the name of the child. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the rules of the policy did not permit or enable the respondent to make such an assignment. The respondent had entered into correspondence with the Life Insurance Corporation and it is submitted that the Life Insurance Corporation has now agreed to assign the policy in the name of the child. We will assume that because of the above difficulty, the policy was not assigned in the name of the child. But, even that according to us, is no valid reason to deny the respondent his right to have custody of the child as per Annexure 1 order. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent shall later produce before the Family Court the necessary documents to confirm that the directions in Annexure 1 order has been complied with in letter and spirit. 6. It is not necessary for us to go into that contention in detail. We are satisfied that the impugned order does not, at any rate, warrant any interference. The learned Judge of the Family Court had fixed 30.3.2009 as the date for production of the child before the Family Court. That date has now expired. We direct that the child be handed over to the respondent by the appellant as directed by the Family Court on next Mat. Appeal No. 249/2009 4 Monday, i.e. 6.4.2009 at 10.30 a.m. 7. This Matrimonial Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ Mat. Appeal No. 249/2009 5 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. MAT. APPEAL NO.249/09 JUDGMENT 3rd April, 2009