IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 944 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/04/2011 IN IA.3936/2010 IN OP.1985/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SUNIL KUMAR P., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE DR.PRABHAKARAN, "NANDANAM", NEAR MOTHER TERESA HIGH SCHOOL, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT: --------------- RAJANI K.V., AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.K.V.VISWAMBARAN, KAMMATTIKAVU HOUSE, NEAR CHRISTU JAYANTHI HOSPITAL, NJARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682505. ADV. MS. K.GIRIJA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cont. Case No. 944 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A : A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT DATED 18.04.2011 IN I.A. 3936 OF 2010 IN O.P. 1985 OF 2009 ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29.04.2011 ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF R.P. NO. 1942 OF 2011 ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 2056 OF 2011 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cont. Case No. 944 OF 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 7th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon J. The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife respectively. The matter relates to the alleged non-compliance of the order in I.A. No. 3936 of 2010 in O.P. No. 1985 of 2009. 2. As per the order in the I.A., it is stated that the petitioner was permitted to have interim custody of the children from 10.00 A.M on 02.05.2011 till 4.00 P.M. on 07.05.2011, which however was not complied with. It is stated that, the respondent, as a device to evade the consequences, filed an I.A seeking to review the order. The case of the petitioner is that, the petition itself is a predated one, which however is sought to be rebutted by the respondent. It is stated that there is a conscious attempt to flout the order passed by the Family Court, which constitutes an offence under the Contempt of Court Act, which is sought to be dealt with in this case. 3. Pursuant to the notice served, the respondent was personally present before this Court on the last occasion on 05.09.2011 and undertook to produce the children. The children are before this Court COC (C) No. 944 of 2011 : 2 : today. During the course of hearing, as suggested by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, we let the children to be in the custody of the petitioner in the forenoon. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner might be permitted to take the children out for some more time and to purchase and give some items of his choice to the children, particularly, in the eve of onam. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly concedes to the above proposition in the best interest of the children. In the said circumstances, we permit the petitioner to have the custody of the children up to 5.00 P.M. today and the custody shall be re-entrusted to the respondent by 5.00 P.M. today itself, as assured and undertaken. We close the contempt matter, holding that, no further proceedings are necessary and the parties are relegated to work out their remedies before the Family Court. Sd/- J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/ P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd