IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(Crl.).No. 163 of 2008(S) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SANKARI SASIDHARAN @ SALINI, D/O.SASIDHARAN, SANKARA VILASAM, MANDADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 5. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.VASU, B.7, ALSA APARTMENTS, ULLOOR LANE, DPI, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 6. SURESH, B.7, ALSA APARTMENTS, ULLOOR LANE, DPI, JAGATHI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 7. OMANA, W/O.VASU, B.7, ALSA APARTMENTS, ULLOOR LANE, DPI, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 8. VALSALA, W/O.SURESH, B.7, ALSA APARTMENTS,ULLOOR LANE, DPI, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. PUSHPALATHA BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE FOR R5 TO 8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.163/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT's ON 15/5/2008. P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(Crl)NO.163 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. This is a petition for habeas corpus filed by the mother of the alleged detenu. It is alleged that the father of the child has taken the child and kept under his illegal custody. The child was produced and this Court passed an order on 29/5/2008 to give temporary custody of the child to the petitioner-mother. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. Since the child is only 10 months old, necessarily the child is to be with the mother for the time being and therefore we have already given temporary custody of the child to the mother. However, that does not mean that the 5th respondent-father is to be denied visitorial rights and also future custody of the child in changed circumstances. Therefore, we make it clear that the order giving the child in the custody of the mother is purely provisional and it is open to the parties to approach the Family Court for appropriate relief in which event the Family Court will consider the matter in the light of the materials -2- WP(Crl).No.163/2008 available on record and pass appropriate orders. Writ Petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.