IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9288 of 2009(R) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2008 IN EP.30/2008 IN GOP.1322/2003 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- KURIAKOSE, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. YOHANNAN, VALIYAKAROTT HOUSE, KOOVAPARA.O.O., KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SUNI PAULOSE, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. PAULOSE, POKKATHAI HOUSE, THRIKKALLATHOOR.P.O ERNAKULAM. BY // THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO. 9288 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner before us is the respondent in an execution proceedings before the Family Court, Ernakulam which was disposed of by the impugned order. 2. The petitioner and respondent were married. They have one child in the wedlock. That marriage stands dissolved. The child born in the wedlock is a minor aged 11 years and is now a student of the 4th standard. There were disputes regarding custody of the child. Those disputes were resolved by settlement/compromise. It was agreed that the child shall be admitted to a boarding school. Agreement regarding the expenditure to be incurred was also struck. Opportunities were given to both parents to have custody of the child, subject to the terms of settlement, during vacation etc. The child was so continuing in the boarding school. The mother of the child/respondent herein got remarried. An application was filed by the petitioner herein/father to alter the earlier order passed regarding custody of the child. That application was dismissed and an appeal is pending before this Court, it is submitted. W.P.(C)NO.9288/2009 2 3. Be that as it may, the child was continuing in the boarding school. That school discontinued the boarding facility. The petitioner was informed about such discontinuance. He took the child from the boarding school and instead of seeking the direction of the court and putting the child in some other boarding school, took law into his own hands and admitted the child in a local school near his house. The respondent/mother of the child felt that this was violation of the terms of the compromise order passed and filed an application for execution of that order. The learned Judge of the Family Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application, but made certain specific observations, the details of which we shall refer to later. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by certain observations made in that order and has come up before this Court to delete/set aside the said observations. 4. We shall extract the relevant observations in the operative portion of the impugned order which, to us, appear to be crucial: “It is true that the child is now staying in the house of the respondent. It is against the terms of the compromise decree. The respondent has explained the reason why he could not continue the education in the boarding school. The parties have not produced materials to ascertain the probable education expense at St.Thomas School, Muvattupuzha. Since the child has W.P.(C)NO.9288/2009 3 already been admitted in St. Stephen's Bes Ania Public School, the education of the child can be continued in that school. It is made clear that the respondent shall secure admission for the child from the next academic year in Vimala Giri School, Kothamangalam and the child should be allowed to remain in the boarding in that school from 5th standard onwards. The respondent shall ensure that the education standard of the child shall be retained throughout the academic year. With the above observation the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.” The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the above observation. 5. We find absolutely no merit in the grievance raised. As per the terms of the compromise decree, the child is to be admitted to a boarding school. The mere fact that the boarding school in which the child was admitted has discontinued the boarding facility/hostel is no reason for the petitioner to take law into his hands and without any direction of the court, keep the child with him and admit the child to a school where there is no boarding facility. The observations of the court extracted above are, in these circumstances, found to be absolutely justified. We find no reason to interfere with the said observations made by the Family Court. We do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the challenge raised. As we find no merit in the challenge raised, we are not inclined to go into the question whether a proper appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts W.P.(C)NO.9288/2009 4 Act should have been preferred or whether the challenge raised in this Writ Petition can be considered. We are satisfied that even assuming that the Writ Petition is maintainable, the challenge raised is without any substance. The Writ Petition only deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that this Writ Petition may be posted along with Mat. Appeal No. 458 of 2008 wherein the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Family Court refusing to alter the terms of the compromise decree. We find no reason to resort to that course. It is for the appellant to raise appropriate request in such pending Mat. Appeal if he feels that any interim altered arrangements must be made. At any rate, the observations of the Family Court in the execution petition extracted above are found to be absolutely justified on the basis of the compromise decree already passed. 7. This Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C)NO.9288/2009 5 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C)NO.9288/2009 JUDGMENT 24th March, 2009 W.P.(C)NO.9288/2009 6