IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 OP (FC).No. 181 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OP.496/2009 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ SUDHA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.VISWANATHAN, PANANJIKUNNATH, SHORNUR DESOM, MUNDAMUKA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT --------------- VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHUNNI, MOOCHIKKAL, AKALUR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. (F.C.) No.181 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Basant J., The petitioner is the mother of a eleven years old child (boy). The respondent here in is the father of the child. The respondent filed a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, for custody of the child. He filed an application for interim custody of the child. The application was opposed. The Court below by impugned order directed the petitioner to produce the child before the Family Court on 4.10.2010. The Court below further directed that the respondent herein/ father shall be permitted to interact with the child for a period of three hours in the Family Court premises and that the petitioner herein can take the child back from the Family Court. 2. Quite surprisingly, the petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not adequately heard before the order was passed. She did get opportunity to file a counter O.P. (F.C.) No.181 of 2010 2 statement. Why is it that the petitioner cannot comply with a very innocuous and harmless direction? The only submission is that the child is suffering from ailment and he has to attend school. If that be so, it was the obligation of the petitioner to appear before the Family Court and request the Family Court on 4.10.2010 that the case may be posted to the very next convenient date. Instead of doing that the petitioner has unnecessarily approached this Court. Bonafides is not a virtue that we can discover or invent in the hands of the petitioner. It is submitted at the Bar that the petitioner has filed an application before the Family Court on 4.10.2010 seeking an opportunity to produce the child on the next convenient date, which is said to be on the 13th October. The petitioner must definitely wait for the orders of the Family Court. We find absolutely no merit in the attempt to challenge the impugned order, at this juncture. Needless to say, the Family Court must consider the request of the petitioner for an opportunity to produce the child on a day after 4.10.2010 and pass appropriate orders on merits. We make no expression of opinion how such application ought to be O.P. (F.C.) No.181 of 2010 3 disposed of. We do not know the compulsion which prompted the Family Court to advance hearing of the petitioner and direct the petitioner to produce the child on 4.10.2010 before the Court below. The petitioner prays for invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The prayer is found to be without any substance. The petitioner must now produce the child before the Family Court on any convenient date as directed by the Family Court. Family Court shall be at liberty to take action against the petitioner for not complying with the impugned order. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Communicate this judgment forthwith to the Family Court. R. BASANT, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/ O.P. (F.C.) No.181 of 2010 4