IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28930 of 2010(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/08/2010 IN IA 5019/2010 IN OP.1199/2009 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- TREESA INCHODY, INCHODY HOUSE, CHRIST COLLEGE ROAD, P.O.IRINJALAKKUDA, TRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJI MATHEW SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MATHEW THOMAS, VADAKKEKKARA HOUSE, KOMBAZHA, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DT. ADDRESS IN DUBAI - P.O.BOX NO.30429, DUBAI, U.A.E. 2. SHEEJA VARGHESE, INCHODY HOUSE, CHRIST COLLEGE ROAD, P.O.IRINJALAKUDA, TRISSUR DT. 3. VARGHESE INCHODY, INCHODY HOUSE, CHRIST COLLEGE ROAD, P.O.IRINJALAKUDA, TRISSUR DT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.28930 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner is the mother of a minor child, a boy, aged 9 years. It is unnecessary to refer to the history of this litigation. Suffice it to say that the child is now in the custody of the mother, who happens to be employed abroad. The respondent herein is the father of the child. The father claimed custody of the child during the vacation. The court below proceeded to direct that the child can be handed over to the custody of the father from 23.08.2010 to 01.09.2010. That period admittedly fell squarely within the period of vacation of the child. The learned Judge of the Family Court further directed that “if the 1st respondent (the petitioner herein) has any difficulty to come over to India, she is at liberty to make the child available in India or in Dubai or at the place to be decided by the counsel on both sides. If the petitioner (the father/the respondent herein) is willing to go to U.K to collect the child, he is permitted to have that course also and the place at U.K from where the child can be handed over is to be intimated by the counsel for the 1st respondent (the petitioner herein) after consulting with the counsel for the petitioner before 23.08.2010”. W.P(C) No.28930/2010 2 2. It is now admitted that these directions have not been complied with. Long later, on 17.09.2010, the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the impugned order. 3. The directions have not been complied with and we are unable to find anything wrong in the directions issued. The court below must definitely be contemplating now of what further directions can or need be issued in the matter. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all her contentions before the court below and we do not, at any rate, find it necessary to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 at this stage to interfere with the impugned order. The challenge fails. 4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) rtr/