IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15866 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OP.857/2008 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- JOSHY ABRAHAM,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM PAYYAPPILLY,BY-PASS ROAD,ALWAYE. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- JESS MATHEW,D/O.T.P.MATHAI, AGED 40 YEARS,THEKKEATTATHU HOUSE, KARIMANNOOR.P.O,THODUPUZHA.NOW RESIDING AT NAGARJUNA PEARL BAY,B0-803,PUTHIYA ROAD,OFF.K.P. VALLON ROAD,COCHIN-20. ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R1 SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU FOR R1 SRI.JAGAN GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD FOR R1 SRI.P.G.PRAMOD FOR R1 SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** W.P(C) No.15866 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court. Parties are spouses. Their marital tie has been dissolved by a decree for divorce by mutual consent under Section 10 A of the Divorce Act. Ext.P1 is the joint compromise statement filed by the parties. Provisions have been made in such settlement about the custody/education etc. of the child. The petitioner filed an application before the Family Court for modification of the arrangement. In short his grievance was only that he was not getting sufficient involvement in the matter of education of his child. He prayed that he may be permitted to have interactions with the school authorities and his right to be apprised of the educational progress and development of the child may be recognised. 2. The application was opposed. Intera alia, it was contended that the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner was causing difficulties to the peaceful continuance of the child in the W.P(C) No.15866 of 2010 2 school. The court below by the impugned detailed orders (Ext.P4) turned down the request of the petitioner. 3. We have heard both counsel. We are not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances justifying or warranting invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. The same does appear to us to be absolutely fair, reasonable, cogent and legitimate. The joint compromise statement relates to the custody of the minor child till 31.12.2010. Thereafter parties are given option to approach the Family Court for modification. We are not satisfied that before 31.12.2010 there is any need to modify the condition. But we appreciate the anxiety of the petitioner. According to the petitioner his son makes tall claims about his performance in the school, but the assessment by the petitioner does not tally with the tall claims made by his son about his educational achievements. Therefore he wants to know more about the educational progress of the child. That concern can be adequately provided. Appropriate directions can be issued. 4. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed in part; W.P(C) No.15866 of 2010 3 b) The impugned order is upheld; c) But a direction is issued that a copy of the progress card of the child shall be sent by the mother (ie. the respondent herein) to the petitioner every time by registered post within 10 days' of receipt of such progress card from the school; d) The petitioner shall not visit the school or interact with the teachers or school authorities about the education of the child without the prior permission of the Family Court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/