IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 OP (FC).No. 749 of 2011(R) -------------------------- OP.1607/2009 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SUBHASH BOSE, AGED 35, S/O.NARAYANAN, MANGALATH HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.AMMINI P.K., NADUVELI HOUSE P.O. CHITTISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT: --------------- SUNITHA, AGED 30 YEARS D/O. PRABHAKARAN, VALIYAPURAKKAL HOUSE P.O. NELLAYI, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS O.P. (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(FC).No. 749 of 2011 R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. In this Original Petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner filed G.O.P. No. 1607 of 2009 before the Family Court, Thrissur against the respondent herein under the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking permanent custody of his minor child. An ex parte order was passed granting custody of the minor child to the petitioner. Thereupon the respondent filed an application, Ext.P2, to set aside the ex parte order. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 objection to the said application. As there was delay in filing Ext.P2 application, Ext.P4 petition was O.P.(FC).No. 749 of 2011 2 filed to condone the delay. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 objection to the said application. 3. The petitioner, who is the natural guardian and who has obtained orders for custody of the child, obtained custody from the respondent and he wanted to record the said fact, for which he filed I.A.No. 6794 of 2010. The said application was dismissed as per Ext.P6. The reasonings in Ext.P6 are that: “The child, who is aged about 10 years, has submitted that he is not prepared to go with the father and he wants to go with his mother. As the child came in the hands of the petitioner not through court and as the respondent submits that she did not hand over custody of the child to the petitioner the request of the petitioner cannot be allowed. The petitioner is entitled to get custody of the child under due process of law. Request of the petitioner to record that he has received custody of the child from the respondent mother is hence turned down. Petition i dismissed. Custody of the minor child is given O.P.(FC).No. 749 of 2011 3 to the respondent mother for the present till the disposal of I.A. 7415/10.” 4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We see no reason to interfere with the order in our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the welfare of the child has to be looked into. His mother, the respondent, has other minor children. We are of the view that these facts can be brought to the notice of the Family Court. 6. Subject to the said observations, this Original Petition is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm