IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11340 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OPGW.472/2006 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.RAJEEV, AGED 51, S/O.LATE DR.K.SREENIVASAN, T.C.4/868, JAYASREE, PARVATHI NAGAR, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. BY ADV. SRI.PRAKASH P.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.BINDU, AGED 37, D/O.V.K.RAKHAVAN, RESIDING AT VYSAKH, NEAR CHOTTANIKKARA TEMPLE, KANDANAD P.O., THIRUVANKULAM (VIA), ERNAKULAM-682 305. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P(C) No.11340 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner and respondent are spouses. The bone of contention in this proceedings before the Family Court is the custody of the minor children. The petitioner is a U.S passport holder and has a permanent visa to visit India. The children are now in the custody of the mother. Proceedings for custody are pending before the Family Court as O.P.No.472 of 2006. The petitioner made an application for interim custody of the children. That application was opposed. The apprehension was expressed that if the custody of the children were given to the petitioner, he might leave India with the children and may make himself scarce. The learned Judge of the Family Court by the impugned order allowed in part the petition for custody of the children. The children have to remain in the custody of the mother. But on 4 occasions in an year the custody of the children is temporarily granted to the petitioner herein. That direction is tempered with W.P(C) No.11340 of 2009 2 conditions. The petitioner will get the custody of the children for 2 days after Onam, ie. the 3rd and 4th days after Onam. Similarly he will get custody of the children for 2 days after Christmas, ie. the 3rd and 4th days after Christmas. He will get custody of the children for 4 days after Vishu, ie. the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th days after Vishu. There is also a specific direction that from 5th May to 8th May during Summer Vacation, the petitioner shall be entitled to have the custody of the children. 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the apprehension expressed by the mother that the petitioner, a U.S citizen, may leave India with the children. Therefore the learned Judge was obliged to impose appropriate condition which shall allay the legitimate apprehension of the mother. To make sure that neither the children nor the petitioner are enabled to leave India without returning of the children to their mother, the Family Court insisted on a condition that the passport of the petitioner and the elder child must be surrendered before court when the children are taken into custody by the petitioner and the passports shall be returned to the petitioner when the children W.P(C) No.11340 of 2009 3 are returned to the mother. We find absolutely nothing unreasonable or unfair in the order. We fail to understand for what earthly purpose the petitioner requires his passport during the period the children are entrusted to the custody of the petitioner on the basis of the interim order. If he were to go abroad during this period, he will be unable to comply with the order that the children must be surrendered to court. In any view of the matter, the condition imposed does appeal to us to be absolutely reasonable, fair and just. The Family Court was only attempting to allay the reasonable apprehension of the mother/respondent herein. Even assuming that the mother had not insisted on such a specific condition and had only expressed her apprehension that the petitioner may along with the children go out of India, we are satisfied that the Family Court was perfectly justified in imposing the condition. Viewed in any manner, we are unable to find why the petitioner should insist that his passport must be allowed to be with him during the period between which he takes the children from and surrenders the children back before the Family Court. W.P(C) No.11340 of 2009 4 3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 4. The petitioner apprehends that his passport may be lost/tampered with while in the custody of the Family Court. The Presiding Officer of the Family Court is directed to ensure that whenever the passports are surrendered before the Family Court, the same shall be kept in safe custody by the Family Court under the personal supervision of the Presiding Officer. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-