IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34295 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2760/09 IN I.A.NO.3614/2009 IN OP.1033/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAVIN RAJ, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. N.RAJAGOPAL, RESIDING AT 'ASHIRWAD'-50/344 (BI & B2) AASHARIPARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPALLY.P.O. COCHIN-24. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SRI.MANJU R.KARTHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SMITHA MENON, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. A.K.NANDAKUMAR, RESIDING AT 'SMRITHI' ALAPPAT HOUSE, PISHARI KOVIL TEMPLE ROAD, EROOR NORTH POST, TRIPUNITHURA KOCHI-6. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.34295 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant,J This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is the father of a 20 months old minor female child. The child is in the custody of its mother. The petitioner/father has filed an application for custody of the child. Application for interim custody was also made. The court below initially issued some directions regarding interim custody. Visitorial rights were granted to the petitioner/father. Subsequently, on the application filed by the respondent/mother, the conditions were modified. By the impugned order, the condition now prevails that the child shall continue with the mother; but the petitioner/father shall have right to have custody of the child from 2 p.m to 4 p.m on the second and fourth Saturdays of all English calender months. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 2. What is the grievance of the petitioner, that should persuade us to invoke our extra ordinary constitutional W.P.C No.34295/09 2 jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the child, though only 20 months old, is absolutely comfortable with the father and there is nothing wrong in the earlier conditions continuing to occupy the field - of the father being given custody from 9.30 a.m to 5 p.m. every Friday and Saturday. 3. We have gone through the impugned order. We take note of the tender age of the child. In any view of the matter, we are not persuaded to agree that the modification of the earlier interim order by the learned Judge of the Family Court by the impugned order deserves or warrants interference. The said direction, according to us, does not suffer from any vice which can persuade us to invoke our extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the time slot allotted i.e 2 p.m to 4 p.m is causing difficulties to the petitioner as that is the time during which the child usually sleeps. The petitioner can certainly point out that fact to the learned Judge and we have no reason to assume that the learned Judge would not consider the prayer of the petitioner to alter the time slot so that it can be advantageous to all concerned. W.P.C No.34295/09 3 5. Reserving the right of the petitioner to make such request before the learned Judge, this writ petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C No.34295/09 4 W.P.C No.34295/09 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009