IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 12 of 2009(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANGEETHA VARGHESE, W/O. VARGHESE, FLAT NO.201, MAHAVIR SARGAM, PLOT #2, SECTOR 5, GHANSOLI, NAVI MUMBAI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MAPPILASSERY, MUDAVOOR.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VARGHESE.M VARGHESE @ GULMON, S/O.M.C. VARGHESE, MADAPARAMBIL, HOUSING BOARD FLAT NO. 39, 4TH CROSS ROAD, NEAR VIJAYA STEPHEN'S CLINIC, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-18. 2. M.C. VARGHESE, S/O. LATE CHUMMAR, MADAPARAMBIL, HOUSING BOARD FLAT NO. 39, 4TH CROSS ROAD, NEAR VIJAYA STEPHEN'S CLINIC, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-18. 3. MRS. NOB VARGHESE, W/O.M.C. VARGHESE, MADAPARAMBIL, HOUSING BOARD FLAT NO. 39, 4TH CROSS ROAD, NEAR VIJAYA STEPHEN'S CLINIC, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-18. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALWAYE. 7. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WP(CR). 12 OF 2009 EXT.P1: COPY OF RECEIPT DT. 8/8/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF IDENTITY CARD. EXT.P3: COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. 21/12/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. DO. SUBMITTED BEFORE C.I. A. K. Basheer & Thomas P. Joseph, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (Crl.) No. 12 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009. Judgment Basheer, J: Petitioner is the mother of a child aged 4 years named Varghese alias Kuttan. The child is born in the wedlock between the petitioner and respondent No.1 Admittedly petitioner is now employed in Mumbai and respondent No.1 is doing business at Muvattupuzha. According to the petitioner, the child was taken away by respondent No.1 from her custody on December 20, 2008 without her permission and consent. Apparently there is some misunderstanding between the petitioner and respondent No.1. 2. The child was produced before the Court by respondent No.1 on January 19, 2009. Petitioner was also present in the Court on that day. From the reaction of the child we could notice that the child is very much attached to his mother as well as his father. On that day the petitioner was allowed to take the child with her and the case was adjourned. It was directed that respondent No.1 shall be permitted to talk to the child once every day over the telephone. 3. Thereafter the case came up for consideration on February 2, 2009. On that day the petitioner informed the Court that she is constrained to leave for Mumbai to join duty. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and respondent No.1 had reportedly met and talked. Respondent No.1 had also occasion to meet the child. 4. Today when the case is taken up for further consideration respondent No.1 stated before us that he had seen off his wife and child to Mumbai yesterday. He submitted before us that he would like to see the child once in a while and that he is prepared to visit the child in Mumbai. W.P.Crl.12/09. 2 His only apprehension is that petitioner may be averse in allowing him to meet the child. We do no find any reason why the petitioner shall do so. Anyhow, we make it clear that petitioner shall not cause any obstruction if respondent No.1 wants to meet his child at Mumbai. At the same time, respondent No.1 shall not create any scene while he is visiting the child. He shall also not try to take away the child from the care and custody of the petitioner for the time being. 5. We make it clear that this interim arrangement shall remain in force till the misunderstanding between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is cleared or any order is passed by a competent court. 6. If any of the parties chooses to approach the appropriate forum, it will be open to the court concerned to take an appropriate decision in the matter of custody of the minor child. The court concerned shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law, untrammelled by any of the observations made by us in this judgment. The Writ Petition is closed. A.K. BASHEER Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge an.