IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16298 of 2009(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDUL MUKTHAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MAMMUKUTTY, CHELLIPADATH HOUSE, BRAHMAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT: --------------- SABEENA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.HASSAINAR, PAREYANKUDI HOUSE, VEMBILLY P.O., KUMARAPURAM, ALWAYE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 16298 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner and the respondent are spouses. Marriage still subsists, though it is in doldrums. The wife has already initiated proceedings for divorce and also for return of money and for maintenance. Not to be left behind, the petitioner-father has promptly filed an application for custody of the 3 ½ old minor son. He also applied for interim custody of the 3 ½ year old minor son from the mother. By the impugned order, the learned Judge made arrangements regarding custody/visitation pending disposal of the O.P. The petitioner was granted interim custody from 10.00 a.m. on 25-5-2009 till 5.00 p.m. on 26-5-2009. It was further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to have access to the child on the 3rd and 4th Saturdays of every month hereafter from 10.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. from the court premises. WPC.16298/2009 -2- After the order the 3rd and 4th Saturdays are yet to come. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order and prays that the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be invoked to interfere with Ext.P6 order. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are not satisfied that the impugned order demands or warrants any interference invoking the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The order does appear to us to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. At any rate, there is no warrant for interfering with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that even this order is not being complied with by the respondent. The Family Court has passed the order. The matter is still pending before the Family Court. We will not lightly to assume that the Family Court will be unequal the task and to challenge before it to enforce the order passed by it. Every endeavour must be made by the Family Court to enforce the order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he WPC.16298/2009 -3- wants the order to be modified so that he can have greater interaction of the child. The present arrangement must be permitted to be worked out and if the petitioner wants to modify the order, he can certainly approach the Family Court, with appropriate request. 6. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE WPC.16298/2009 -4-