IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 OP (FC).No. 1594 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.779/2010 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ JOHNSON VITHAYATHIL,AGED 40 YEARS, VITHAYATHIL HOUSE,XII B, PERIYAR HERMITAGE, COMPANY PADY,THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO RESPONDENTS: --------------- MRIMAY.C.S,AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.SEBASTIAN,CHAKKALACKAL HOUSE, PRIYADARSHINI COLONY,ALANGAD PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 511. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C) No.1594 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic J., The Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in G.O.P. No. 779 of 2010 on the file of Family Court, Ernakulam. In that proceedings he filed I.A. No. 1050 of 2011 seeking custody of minor child Fionna for one month during summer vacation from 2.5.2011 to 31.5.2011. The Family Court after hearing the parties and considering the pleadings passed Ext.P6 order declining custody of the minor child, but allowing her father to have access of the child during the period mentioned in the order. It is aggrieved by the said order, this O.P.(F.C.) is filed. 2. The reasons which are relied on by the Family Court to pass the aforesaid order declining the custody are reflected in paras 5 and 6 of the order which reads as follows: “The respondent has opposed the claim of the applicant. She has stated that the O.P.(F.C) No.1594 of 2011 :2: matrimonial relationship between herself and the applicant was strained due to illicit and wayward life of the applicant with one Vidhula, w/o.Sooraj. The respondent has stated that the child has seen the applicant and Vidhula together in his house on several occasions, that too in her absence. The respondent has stated that the JFCM-1, Aluva passed an order restraining the applicant from taking forceful custody of the child. The respondent has produced photograph of the applicant with Vidhula, w/o Sooraj. She has produced copy of the phone bill of the applicant pertaining to mobile no.9847051919. She has produced copy of the order in M.C. 93 of 2009, passed by JFCM-1, Aluva. The document produced by the respondent probablise the intimate relationship between the applicant and Vidhula Sooraj. The call details from the telephone bill in the name of the applicant reveal that he was having constant contact O.P.(F.C) No.1594 of 2011 :3: with Vidhula Sooraj. The applicant has contended that the respondent was leading wayward life. It is true that there is allegations and counter allegations. The documents produced by the respondent probablise that the apprehension of the respondent is true to certain extent. In such circumstances it will not be just or proper to handover overnight custody of the girl child to the applicant. Being the father, the applicant is permitted to have occasional access to the child, from the court premises.” 3. In this O.P.(F.C.) the petitioner has not produced any material to contradict the aforesaid findings of the Family Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, we see no reason to interfere with impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner complains that the order might influence the final outcome of the proceedings. We do not find any substances in this complaint also, as according to us, O.P.(F.C) No.1594 of 2011 :4: the reasons relied on in Ext.P6 are only for the purpose of passing order in I.A. No.1050 of 2011. We do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly the O.P.(F.C.) is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/