IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3485 of 2011(R) --------- --------------------------- OP.559/2011 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA ........................... .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SHYNI T.ABRAHAM, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. T.C.ABRAHAM, THADATHIL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM P.O., RANNY PANCHAYATH, RANNY VILLAGE & RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.JOHNY K.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. FR.DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, KODIYATTU HOUSE, AVANEESWARAM P.O., KUNNIKODU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 508. 2. SOMY DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. FR.DANIEL, KODIYATTU HOUSE,AVANEESWARAM P.O., KUNNIKODU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 508. R1 BY SENIOR ADV. SRI.CHACKO GEORGE SRI.H.RAMANAN R2 BY SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU OP (FC).No. 3485 of 2011(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT : P1 : COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P. NO.559/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. STU THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------- O.P(FC).No.3485 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.The complaint of the petitioner was that her interlocutory application for interim custody of the child is not being considered expeditiously by the court below. 2.Read orders dated 28.10.2011 and 2.11.2011. 3.Mediation failed. 4.By now, we are clear in our mind that the arrangement could be, as of now, in terms of what is stated in paragraph 3 of the order dated 2.11.2011. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is some hitch in working out that order since the petitioner does not get the support of the respondent in utilising the opportunity to visit the child in the home of the respondent. We clarify that the OPFC.3485/11 2 time of visit could be specifically regulated for the time being as to be from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on all Saturdays. We record that learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that his client would not, in any manner, impair such visitation by the mother of the child and would also support. He also says that the child's mother could have food and other facilities from the home, however that, she will come alone and not accompanied by any other person. We record this also. 5.We hasten to add that we have not expressed anything on the merits and we have just recorded the aforesaid only to facilitate the opportunity for the petitioner to forthwith utilise the situation. She may otherwise obtain further orders from the court below even by moving the court which is having jurisdiction, on the basis of the submission of the respondent that the Family court, Thiruvalla does not have jurisdiction to consider the matter. OPFC.3485/11 3 The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Re-transmit the lower court records. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Judge. kkb.17/11.