IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14235 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.1189/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.VASAVAN NAMBOORY, S/O LATE K.N.NEELAKANDAN NAMBOORY, AGED 42 YEARS, KANJIRAKAD MANA, MANNACKANAD P.O., KURAVAILNGAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. S.ANITHA, D/O SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOODIRI, KADIYAKKAL MANA, KUMARANALLOOR P.O., PERUMBAIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. NIRANJANA V., D/O N.VASAVAN NAMBOORY, REP.BY HER MOTHER S.ANITHA -DO- 3. MYTHREYI VASAVAN, D/O N.VASAVAN NAMBOORY, REP.BY HER MOTHER S.ANITHA -DO-. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14235 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The petitioner is the father of two minor children and the first respondent is the mother of the children, his divorced wife. The petitioner had filed an application for custody of the children and the Family Court happened to dismiss the same for default. Later, the petitioner has filed an application for restoration of that application dismissed for default. That petition is pending before the Family Court. The respondent-wife has not entered appearance before the Family Court so far in that petition, it is submitted. 2. At this juncture, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with his grievance. The counsel submits that vacation is about to be over and schools would reopen on 1.6.2009. The petitioner wants this Court to issue directions to ensure that the petitioner is given custody of his two minor children, ie; respondents 2 and 3 herein, before vacation. W.P.(C)No.14235/09 -2- 3. We find the petition to be absolutely without any merit. If the petitioner wants any such interim direction, he must make appropriate application before the Family Court and take out notice to the first respondent/mother of the children expeditiously. We are already on 23.5.2009 and it is unlikely that this Court could issue notice, effect service on the respondents and pass effective orders for custody, during vacation. We find this petition to be without any merit. 4. With the above observation, this petition is dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn