IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 464 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RUBY VARGHESE,D/O.LATE T.K.VARGHESE, AGED 32 YEARS,THARKOLLIL HOUSE,VALANJAVATTOM.P.O, KADAPRA,THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZVAIPUR POLICE STATION, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 587. 3. THOMAS CHERIYAN,AZREEKAL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, CHENGAROOR.P.O, KALOOPARA, MALLAPPALLY, THIRUVALLA-689 594. 4. SUSAMMA CHERIYAN,AZREEKAL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, CHENGAROOR.P.O, KALOOPARA, MALLAPALLY, THIRUVALLA-689 594. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAM PRASAD. R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VPV WPCRNO.464/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE FIR NO. 373/2011 IN THE KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P.(G&W) 516/2011 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PETITIONER IN O.P.(G&W) 605/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P3(A): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A. 1628/2011. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.9.2011 AS I.A. 2811/2011 IN O.P.(G&W) 605/2011. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE APPICATION FILED AS I.A. 3006/2011 IN O.P.(G&W) 605/2011. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.10.11. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN CMP 7994/2011 DATED 23.9.2011 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVALLA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.464 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This matter is listed today `to be spoken to', since we found that the order dated 20.12.2011 was issued on wrong premise as to facts. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, we vacate the order dated 2012.2011. 2. We heard this matter finally as consented to. 3. The victim of this litigation is a child aged one year and seven months. The child was with the father and the paternal grandparents till 19.12.2011, under earlier orders. His father has now gone abroad. It is now in the company of its mother. We see the child in good company with the mother in the court today. In the best interest of the child concerned, we think that the situation now obtained should not be disturbed for the time being. 4. This writ petition was instituted on account of the fact that though proceedings were pending before the Family Court the child WP(Crl.).No.464/2011 2 was not being produced for appropriate visitations. We had summoned the lower court records in O.P.(G&W)No.516 of 2011 of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. Looking at the priorities that arise for consideration, in relation to the management of the child concerned, we are of the view that the parties will appear before the Family Court, Thiruvalla and further prosecute the aforesaid O.P. if necessary. It would be advisable for the parties to come to some amicable arrangement, since we see that the matrimonial tie is not broken and the relationship can be easily rejuvenated and the home retrieved excluding any available bickering. The Family Court will definitely make an effort in this regard also. For the aforesaid reasons, we order that the child will continue with the mother, for the time being, and the paternal grandparents and the father of the child will be at liberty to visit the residence of the mother of the child and see the child and be with it for such time, as they may decide. We also record the request of the paternal grandparents that the child and the mother could go to the Church, where the child was baptized, during Christmas. This could also be done. 5. We clarify that the aforesaid arrangement will continue until the Family Court orders otherwise and this judgment will not stand in the way of the Family Court passing any such orders, as may be WP(Crl.).No.464/2011 3 found necessary, in relation to custody, visitations, guardianship etc. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Re-transmit the LCR to Family Court, Thiruvalla. Communicate a copy of this judgment to that court forthwith. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/22.12