IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 1347 of 2008(S) ------------------------- GOP.721/2007 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ JEEJA GEORGE, D/O.GEORGE, AGED 38, KAITHAVANA HOUSE, KUROORKARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SMT.SANTHAMMA ISSAC SRI.N.C.THOMAS SRI.CHERIAN THOMAS SMT.ANU THANKAM MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- DR.CHERIAN.K.ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 50, KUNNATHU PUTHENPURA (PAIMATTOM), VADAKARA, OLIYAPURAM.P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH FOR R1 SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.1347/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION GOP 721/07 DATED 24-5-07 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY JEEJA GEORGE IN GOP 721/07 DATED 7-8-07 EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF I.A.4728/07 DATED 27-11-07 FILED BY DR.CHERIAN K.ABRAHAM EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF COUNTER DATED 7-1-08 FILED BY JEEJA GEORGE TO I.A.4728/07 EXT.P5. TRUE COPIES OF TAXI FARE VOUCHERS DATED 14-10-07, 26-11-07, 3-12-07 AND 17-12-07. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION OP 685/08 DATED 24-5-07 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.1347 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. The writ petition is filed by the respondent in G.O.P.No.721/2007 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The said petition is filed by the father seeking permanent custody of the child. The child is with the mother ever since its birth. It is seen that the Family Court has protected the visitorial rights of the father by permitting him to see the child on every Monday from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the premises of the Family Court. The necessary expense for the travel of the mother with the child was to be borne by the father. The allegation is that the father did not honour the directions and hence the writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the respondent not to harass the mother and the child. Finding that a little child is unfortunately torn between the 'ego clash' of the husband and wife, we directed the parties to be present before us with the child by order dated 15-1-2008. Thereafter we have made several attempts to purchase peace between the parties. This is one of the rare cases where we have to confess that we have failed, to some W.P(C)No.1347 of 2008 -:2:- extent, owing to the non-co-operation of the parties. Several Conciliators also have intervened in the meanwhile. One name that requires to be mentioned is that of Smt.Molly Jacob, who had spent several hours on several days to make a settlement. It appears that settlement was almost being arrived at. But on small things the same could not be worked out. We do not think it necessary to continue the writ petition any further before us since it is for them to pursue their litigations before the appropriate forum. During the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant to directions issued by this court, the respondent has returned all the personal belongings and other articles of the petitioner, including the car. As part of the steps towards settlement, we had also permitted the child to be taken by the father to his paternal grand-parents. We had also directed them to consult Psychologists. Again as part of the earnest attempts taken by this court we asked the parties to stay together for a week and even that attempt was in vain as nothing fruitful came out of that. Still further, in the process, we had passed an order permitting the mother to take passport for the child. It is W.P(C)No.1347 of 2008 -:3:- submitted that she has already received the passport of the child. That step was taken by this court on the submission made by the mother that she was planning to seek an employment in Malaysia/Singapore and hence the child had to be taken. The understanding was that the parties would settle their disputes and file a joint petition under Section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of the marriage on mutual consent and in case the child was taken to Malaysia/Singapore, for 2/3rd of the annual vacation of the mother, custody of the child will be given to the father and that the father will be given his visitorial rights wherever the child is. It is seen that we had put a rider in the order in I.A.No.9256/2008 to the effect that the child should not be taken out of the country without permission from the court. Now that we are disposing of the writ petition itself the order dated 28-7-2008 in I.A.No.9256/2008 is vacated. 2. Since the disputes are to be pursued by the parties before the Family Court, we do not think that any further direction need be issued by this court at this stage. The parties are fee to pursue their grievances before the Family Court. We W.P(C)No.1347 of 2008 -:4:- make it clear that since we have not placed reliance on any of the reports of the Psychologist/Psychiatrist obtained while the writ petition was pending before this court, the Family Court also need not rely on those reports and it will be open to the Family Court to independently proceed with the cases. 3. Though the court was inclined to fix an appropriate remuneration to the learned Conciliator-cum-Mediator Smt.Molly Jacob, learned Conciliator graciously submits that since she could not succeed in settling the issue, she is not interested in any remuneration. We record our deep appreciation for the earnest efforts taken by the learned Conciliator. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- W.P(C)No.1347 of 2008 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 21st August, 2008