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 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20706 of 2010(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/05/2010 IN IA 1174/2010 IN OP(GW.455/2008 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- KAVITHA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. MR. K.ARUMUGHAM, RESIDING AT 'KAMAL', PAYYIKKUZHI, OACHIRA BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.I.P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT: --------------- ANILKUMAR, KONNAYIL RAJENDRA VILASOM, PUTHENTHURA, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM-691588. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(C) No.20706 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This petition is filed requesting this Court to invoke the extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the impugned order, ie. Ext.P5 order. By the said order, two children - aged 9 ½ years and 4 ½ years respectively, born to the petitioner and respondent were directed to be handed over to the interim custody of the father of the children, the respondent herein from 10.30 a.m on 29.05.2010 till 10.30 a.m on 31.05.2010. The petitioner is the mother of the two children and she claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Marriage is admitted. The marriage subsists even now. Paternity of the children is also not disputed. We have gone through the impugned order. We find absolutely nothing wrong in the impugned order to justify or warrant our extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner must be able to exercise at least that amount of beneficiary control and hands over her children - aged 9 ½ and 4 ½ years, W.P(C) No.20706 of 2010 2 now to persuade them to go with their father. If there be any insurmountable difficulty, it is certainly for the petitioner to approach the Family Court and seek modification/review of the order passed by the Family Court. We find absolutely nothing wrong in the impugned order to justify or warrant interference at our hands invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If there has been non compliance with the impugned order, the aggrieved can seek further directions from the family court. This Writ Petition is seen filed only on 01.07.2010 and the Family Court, needless to say, shall be at liberty to pass appropriate further orders/directions in the matter. 2. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/