IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3705 of 2011(R) ------------------------------------- OPG&W.1227/2010 of FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ MAUREEN JACOB THOMAS, D/O. JACOB THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C. 30/5391) KOCHUPURACKAL, SUGATHAN ROAD, KUDAVOOR, ANIYARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SMT.O.V.BINDU SRI.J.VIMAL SRI.A.VELAPPAN NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------------- ABRAHAM.V.JACOB, S/O. JACOB, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAKKAMATTOM, MUTTAMBALAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686003. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN OPFC 3705/2011 EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM OP(G&W) 1227/2010 EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP (G&W) 1227/2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 28.2.2011 EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 2183/2010 IN OP (G&W) 1227/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 28.12.2010 EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.3.2011 IN IA 386/2011 IN OP (G&W) 1227/2010 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 387/2007 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 14.9.2007 EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN OP 221/2007 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 29.3.2008 EXT. P8 TRUE COPY OF IA 2009/2011 IN OP 1227/2010 DT. 18.6.2011 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- O.P.(FC).No.3705 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The plea in this original petition is essentially that Ext.P1 ought not to be entertained in the light of the finality of Ext.P7 judgment. Ext.P7 contains certain provisions governing custody of the child. Now, Ext.P3 interim order has been issued after hearing the parties as part of proceedings under Ext.P1. The petitioner, who is the mother of the child, has also filed Ext.P8 raising the question of maintainability of Ext.P1. We think that while the petitioner may be well advised to request the learned Judge of the Family Court to consider the issue of maintainability also, we would not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with Ext.P1 proceedings since there are different considerations on facts to be looked into while entertaining a subsequent application, even on change of circumstances and OP(FC).3705/11 2 other necessary pointers which would run on the basis of the rights of the child. We, therefore, dissuade ourselves from expressing anything on the merits of the petitioner's contentions before us and leave her with liberty to move the learned Judge of the Family Court with request to consider whether the objections as to maintainability would be treated as a preliminary issue. The original petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge kkb.19/11.