IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(Crl.).No. 62 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.N.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.V.NARAYANAN ACHARI, CHERUKULANGARA HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.K.A.JALEEL MR.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) MR.N.K.POULOSEKUTTY MR.P.M.MOHAMMED HASSAN MR.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SINDHU, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.GOPIDASAN ACHARI, MADAYIL HOUSE, L.K.KAMBI, ASHRAMAM WARD, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 4. NAWAB, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUNJU, NEAR MAROTTIPARAMBIL, KARUKA WARD, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(CRL) 62/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 16.1.09 IN OP(HMA) NO.41/09 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 5.2.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. & P.S.Gopinathan, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(Crl.)No.62 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner and the third respondent were granted divorce on mutual consent. It appears that there were also certain proceedings which ended upon consent. At this point of time, the petitioner contends that the child born to them is under the custody of the third respondent, who has now allegedly eloped with the fourth respondent. The fact of the matter remains that the third respondent is the mother of the child in question. If the petitioner has any claim for custody, guardianship or for visitorial rights or is of the view that the third respondent has become incompetent to continue to have WPCR62/10 -: 2 :- custody of the child, it is for the petitioner to move appropriately before the competent court. With the Family Court being available to give sufficient redressal for such situations, we do not find it necessary to issue any direction in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 by issuing a habeas corpus. The writ petition is hence dismissed without prejudice. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. Sha/1602