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 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 503 of 2011(S) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PRAMOD ZACHARIAS, S/O.P.S. SCARIA, AGED 36 YEARS, PADINJAREKUTTU HOUSE, AYAMANNOOR P.O., AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), SRI.P.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. SAVITHA, KIZHAKKEDATHU HOUSE, MARANADU P.O., PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM-691 011. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T. RAMAPRASAD UNNI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(Crl.).No. 503 of 2011(S) APPEDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT O.P(G&W) NO.106/06 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OP(G&W) NO.491/11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.1644/11 IN OP(G&W) NO.491/11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AIR TICKET. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.28.10.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(Crl.)No.503 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent separated. Ext.P1 order was issued on 28.7.2006 granting custody of the child to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is admittedly abroad. He says that he having come down from US and being due to return shortly needs to see the child. We do not find it necessary for us to issue an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner himself has filed an application under the Guardian and Wards Act with interlocutory applications before the Family Court. We are not inclined to disturb the child, as of now. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the 2nd respondent not honouring the visitation rights, he can point out the said issue in the Family Court. The urgency of the petitioner to return to US, in our mind, is not as important as the right of the child to be where it is and to be not scouted upon merely on the basis of the rival allegations between the parents. This writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to other remedies. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/03.11.11