IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 25027 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MATHEW THOMAS, S/O.V.T.MATHEW, AGED 41 YEARS, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, KOZHAMBA DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR (NOW WORKING AT POST BOX NO.30429, COMMERCIAL BANK INTL, DUBAI, 050-5643017) BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS, AKBAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-21. 2. THE COUNSEL GENERAL OF INDIA, INDIAN CONSULATE, DUBAI, UAE. 3. THE HIGH COMMISSIONER OF INDIA, OFFICE OF INDIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER, LONDON, UK. 4. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 5. SHEEJA @ SHEEJA VARGHESE INCHODY, D/O.VARGHESE, INCHODY HOUSE, CHRIST COLLEGE ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, KERALA. (HOLDER OF INDIAN PASSPORT NO.E 3963329) ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 25027 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT I am of the view that the issue sought to be raised by the petitioner has been dealt with by a Bench of this Court in WP(Crl.) No.258/08 which was filed by the petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus directing respondents 1 to 4, 9 & 10 therein to search and produce the petitioner’s minor son, Jel Thomas before this court. The Division bench of this court held that permanent custody of the child was given to the mother by the Family Court, Trichur and if the petitioner has any grievance as regards the order of the Family Court or this court, he can work out the remedies in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the writ petition was closed. I find it difficult to understand how the same averments have been made in this writ petition. Suffice it to say, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is therefore dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue Exts.P7 and P10. (V. GIRI, JUDGE) ttb