IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP (FC).No. 112 of 2011(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 4193 /2010 IN GOP.964/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER -------------------- V.P.KAVITHA RANJINI @ URVASHI,AGED 40 YEARS,D/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN , R/AT 143/3, 9TH STREET,CHAKRAPANI NAGAR, MADHURAVOYAL,CHENNAI- 600 095. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT: --------------- MANOJ KADOM POOTHRA MADOM JAYAN @ MANOJ K.JAYAN,'THEJUS',1/4C1,KURREKKAD PO, THRIPUNITHURA,PUTHIYA KAVU, ERNAKULAM 682 305. ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA FOR R SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 4193 OF 2010 IN G.O.P.NO.964 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.23.11.2010 I.A. NO.4193 OF 2010 IN GOP NO.964 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R.1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DT.8.11.10 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A.4193 OF 2010 IN GOP NO.964 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.26.8.2010 FILED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R3 : TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. 720 OF 2011 IN I.A. 632 OF 2011,011 IN GOP 964 OF 2009, PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R4 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.29.3.2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CON.CASE(C) NO.245 OF 2011 EXT.R5: TRUE COPY OF THE IA 4674 OF 2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN G.O.P. 964 OF 2009 FOR FURTHER MEDICAL EXAMINATION. EXT.R6: TYPED COPY OF INTERIM ORDER FILED IN GOP 964 OF 2009 BY THE PARTIES HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM. EXT.R7: TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DT.13.11.2009 IA.1565 OF 2009 IN GOP 964 OF 2009 BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE K. M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C.) No.112 of 2011 R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph J., The petition in this O.P.(F.C) is as follows: “To direct the respondent to grant the custody of the child Thejalakshmy @ Kunjatta to the petitioner in the interest of justice” 2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner filed G.O.P. No. 964 of 2009 under the Guardians and Wards Act on the files of Family Court, Ernakulam. There was an interim order passed. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.A. No.4193 of 2010 seeking modification to the order seeking custody of the child to the petitioner. The above I.A. was filed seeing the miserable condition of the child, wherein the child was put in a O.P.(F.C.) No.112 of 2011 :2: hostel without even informing the Family Court or the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's child was studying in Chinmaya Vidyalaya Tripunithura, where she was studying well. The child was residing with father. The grandmother of the child namely petitioner's mother and petitioner's sister were all staying in a house close to respondent's house. It is also stated that the contention of the respondent in the case all along is that it is with the intention of giving the child, the company of other children such as the children of petitioner's sister and the company of the petitioner's mother which is highlighted contention of granting custody to him. It is stated that the present action of the respondent in taking the child and putting her in a hostel denies her every chance to grow up as a normal person in the company of close relatives. The child is denied the company of her aunts and grandmother. The child prefers to be in the company of the grandmother and had thoroughly enjoyed the company of the mother. O.P.(F.C.) No.112 of 2011 :3: 3. It is stated that it is challenging the said action of the respondent in moving the child to a hostel and shifting her to Choice School without even obtaining permission from the Family Court, without informing mother and especially without even ascertaining the wishes of the child that the petitioner had filed the above I.A. An affidavit of the mother of the petitioner was filed along side, who on understanding the predicament in which the child has agreed to look after the child, providing all comforts. It is considering the welfare and comfort the child that the petitioner has move the I.A., which was resisted by the respondent. The application was dismissed by Ext.P2 order. Counter affidavit is filed. 4. We must notice that in fact why there is no challenge to the order, as such. We have already extracted the prayer. We also interacted with the child in the chambers. Ext.P2 is an order to application to modify the interim order relegating custody. The main petition is pending consideration. O.P.(F.C.) No.112 of 2011 :4: 5. After having interacted with the child and having heard learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the original petition directing the Family Court to decide the matter on the basis of materials produced before it. K.M.JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/