IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11204 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2009 IN IA 1162/2009. IN GOP.1195/2008 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.BEERAN HAJI ERATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUMATHRA,THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PYARIJAN, AGED 34 YEARS D/O.MUHAMMAD, VADAKKATHALAKAL HOUSE P.O.KOOLIMUTTAM, MATHILAKAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P(C) No.11204 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner is the father of a male child aged 11 years. Respondent is his wife and mother of the child. There are 2 children born in the wedlock. The younger child, another boy aged 3 years is residing with the mother admittedly. The spouses have an estranged relationship and they are residing separately each one with one child. The father has approached the Family Court with an original petition for custody of the child. In that O.P, the mother/the respondent filed an application for interim custody of the child praying that the child may be permitted to be with her during the period of vacation. By the impugned order Ext.P4, the learned Judge of the Family Court directed that the child, a boy aged 11 years be left with the mother for the period from 05.04.09 to 05.05.09. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that direction and prays that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution may be invoked to set aside W.P(C) No.11204 of 2009 2 the direction and ensure that the said direction which is about to be enforced is not enforced. 2. What is the reason ? The fact that the respondent is the mother of the 11 year old child is not disputed. It is contended that the respondent mother is leading a licentious life. To facilitate such licentious life, there is even an allegation that the wife has been administering sedation to the children. In these circumstances, direction for custody may not be issued, it is contended. The learned Judge of the Family Court by the impugned order which does not speak in great detail has directed that the interim custody be given to the mother of the child for a period of one month. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned direction is bad in law in as much as the order does not speak. It is further submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court has not considered the various contention strenuously urged before that Court. In these circumstances, the order may be set aside, it is prayed. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs which are made available before us. We have considered all the submissions made. We need only observe that we are not W.P(C) No.11204 of 2009 3 persuaded to agree that there are any such compelling circumstances which would warrant invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to annul the impugned direction which only ensures that the mother is given the custody of the child for a short period of time during the vacation and the two children are together during the vacation during such period. We are not satisfied that there will be any threat to the safety, welfare, health and well being of the child by the implementation of the impugned direction. Specific direction has been issued that the custody of the child must be returned on the evening on 05.05.09 at 5 p.m. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-