IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8848 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OPGW.57/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA OS.180/2009 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.S.SUNAND, S/O.SIVASAMY, AGED 39 YEARS SREYAS, PADINJATTUMKARA, THEKKUMMURI, THURAVOOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.G.RANJITA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- K.R.SATHEESAN, S/O.LATE.V.KOCHUNNIPANICKER, SINDHOORAM,28/2772 A,COCHIN CORPORATION, CHILAVANNOOR DESOM, CHILAVANOOR,KANAYANNUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8848 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the District Court, Alapuzha in I.A.No.773/09 in O.P.N.57/09. 2. The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.57/09 before the District Court, Alapuzha. It is stated that his wife Smt.Sindhu died on 4.1.2008. He is the guardian of minor child, K.Harisankar. It is stated that out of the death of his his wife relationship between him and relatives of his wife became stained. His claim is that he was forced to leave the house with the minor child to his house. O.S.180/09 had to be filed by him against relatives of his late wife. Copy of the plaint is produced and marked as Ext.P1. On 23.3.2009 the father of late wife has moved O.P.57/09 before the District Court, Alapuzha for appointing him as the guardian of person and property of the minor child. Copy of the same is W.P.(c) No.8848/10 2 produced as Ext.P2. Petitioner says that on receipt of the same petitioner raised preliminary objection challenging jurisdiction of the district court to deal with the matter. According to the petitioner the Family Court alone has jurisdiction to deal with the issue. Copy of the said petition is produced and marked as Ext.P3. 3. Case was posted to 6.3.10 for hearing interlocutory application. It is seen that his counsel was engaged n other court and a lawyer was entrusted to represent him on behalf. According to the petitioner the court below had directed the petitioner to hand over the minor child to the custody of the respondent for a period of one month during the vacation. The petitioner says that the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, he challenges the said order. 4. The learned District judge in the impugned order has stated that the counsel for the respondent submitted that he has no objection to handover the minor child, Harisankar to the custody of the petitioner from 1.4.2010. to W.P.(c) No.8848/10 3 30.4.2010. It was on the basis of a representation filed by the counsel for the respondent/petitioner herein the order was passed. 5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the statement in the order the proper remedy is to move that court by way of review and approach this court under Article 227 of constitution of India. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to take appropriate steps, this petition is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.