IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 1070 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MAT.APPEAL.712/2007 Dated 28/03/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ APPELLANT ------------------------------- MOHAMMED ASHRAF, CHETTIAM PARAMBIL, S/O. RAYIN KUTTY, CHERIYAMUNDAM.P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, AND PRESENTLY RESIDING C/O.C.P. MUHAMMED IQBAL, P.B. NO. 2380, ABUDHABI. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. FEBIN, P.B. NO. 61304, APTECH, GULF LIMITED, JEBLALI FREEZON, DUBAI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTONREY KUNJHI KOYAMUTTY, THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, TIRURANGADI.P.O. 2. PASSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 SRI.SURESH SIVAPURAM FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, ALONG WITH COC NO. 402 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ. ------------------------------- REVIEW PETITON.NO. 1070 OF 2008, CONTEMPT CASE(C).NO.402 of 2009 & I.A.NO.1391 OF 2009 IN MAT.APPEAL.NO.712 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 O R D E R Harun-Ul-Rashid,J. Review Petitioner/appellant is present; but not the respondents. 2. By judgment dated 28/3/2008 this Court disposed of Mat. Appeal No.712/2007 issuing certain directions. The judgment was rendered on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. Since both parties are employed in Gulf countries, as agreed to by the parties, we directed in the judgment that permanent custody of the child shall be with the mother and visitorial right to the father from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the first Friday and third Saturday of every month either at the residence of the lst respondent or at Alnahada Park. We have also -2- R.P..No.1070/08, C.C.(C).NO.402/09 & I.A.NO.1391/09 taken note of the fact that the lst respondent and her family members are visiting Kerala once a year. Therefore, we directed the lst respondent-mother to hand over the child to the appellant- father for ten days during such visits. 3. This review petition is filed by the appellant-father seeking review of the judgment for the reasons set out in the memorandum of review petition. Subsequently, the review petitioner filed I.A.No.1391/2009 for modification of the judgment in Mat. Appeal No.712/2007 and also filed a Contempt Case (C) No.402/2009 to initiate contempt proceedings against the lst respondent. 4. This review petition and other petitions referred above are filed in view of the subsequent developments. The grievance of the review petitioner/appellant is that at the instance of the lst respondent, police issued an arrest warrant against him in the maintenance case pending before the Shariat Court, Dubai. The learned counsel for the review petitioner pointed out that in the -3- R.P..No.1070/08, C.C.(C).NO.402/09 & I.A.NO.1391/09 judgment dated 28/3/2008 the lst respondent agreed to withdraw all the cases initiated by her, which are pending before the Shariat Court, Dubai and that the same was recorded. It is the case of the review petitioner that the lst respondent has violated the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, which are recorded in the judgment. As per the terms agreed by the parties, the lst respondent is bound to hand over the child to the father at Alnahada Park, Dubai. It is averred that for a long time the said Park was closed for repair work and that during the said period the lst respondent's father did not allow the review petitioner to take the child even to a nearby restaurant, that during the said period the direction issued by this Court for temporary custody of the child was not complied with, that the lst respondent's father deliberately is not attending his telephone calls and the appellant/review petitioner is afraid to go to the residence of the lst respondent, since he apprehends that criminal case may be charged against him on the complaint of the lst respondent's -4- R.P..No.1070/08, C.C.(C).NO.402/09 & I.A.NO.1391/09 father. 5. No doubt the lst respondent is bound to comply with the terms of compromise recorded in the judgment. The visitorial right of the father shall be honoured and shall be carried out by both the parties. Both parties agreed that the venue may be changed and suggested that the child shall be handed over to the appellant-father in the premises of Indian Embassy in Abdu Dabi, instead of Alnahada Park. To that extent the direction in the judgment is modified. 6. In the judgment as agreed to by the parties, ten days temporary custody was granted to the appellant-father during summer vacation, as and when the mother visits Kerala. According to the review petitioner, the lst respondent will deliberately avoid her visit to Kerala, since there is no specific date fixed for handing over the child. At the time of passing the judgment, the lst respondent and her counsel submitted that they will pay at least one visit to Kerala in a year. Ten days' -5- R.P..No.1070/08, C.C.(C).NO.402/09 & I.A.NO.1391/09 temporary custody was granted to the father on the assurance given by the lst respondent and her counsel that the lst respondent will visit Kerala during summer holidays every year. The lst respondent is bound to hand over the child to the appellant-father for the said period. If the lst respondent is not visiting Kerala during summer holidays, the appellant/review petitioner is entitled to temporary custody of the child for the same period in Dubai. 7. The review petitioner/appellant submitted that the vacation for the child commenced from 15th June, 2009 for a period of three months and he requested this Court to grant temporary custody for a period of one month. In the circumstances, we direct the lst respondent to hand over the child to the father for a period of 15 days during this summer holidays. It is submitted that the appellant and other family members are coming to Kerala on 20th June, 2009 for summer holidays. The appellant is permitted to take the child from the residence of the -6- R.P..No.1070/08, C.C.(C).NO.402/09 & I.A.NO.1391/09 lst respondent on 19th June, 2009. The review petitioner/appellant is at liberty to take the child to Kerala and he shall hand over back the child on the 16th day. The 15 days period is fixed only for this summer holidays. In future summer holidays, the arrangement for ten days period shall be meticulously complied with by the parties. Review Petition and modification petition (I.A.No.1391/2009) are disposed of as above. Contempt of Court Case (Civil) is closed. KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv. -7- R.P..No.1070/08, C.C.(C).NO.402/09 & I.A.NO.1391/09