IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23179 of 2010(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2856/2010 IN OP.1149/2010 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOUMYA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.LATE POULOSE RESIDING AT CHULLIKKARAN HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, WORKING AS SKILLED SENIOR CARE ASSISTATN, AVNUE NURSING HOME, 82 REIGATE AVANUE SUTTON, SURREY, SMI 3 JJ UNITED KINGDOM. BY ADV. SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SINO PAUL, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.POULOSE, PUTHUSSERRY HOUSE, MUKKANNOOR HOUSE, MUKKANNOOR, ANGAMALY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682556. ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R SRI.M.J.PAULSON FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.23179 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the Family Court. By the said order, the Family Court had permitted the petitioner to have custody of her child from 10 a.m to 5 p.m on 21/7/2010, 22/07/2010, 23/07/2010, 28/07/2010, 29/07/2010, 30/07/2010 and 02/08/2007. The parties are spouses. The petitioner is now employed abroad in the U.K. She has a work permit in her name. The respondent/husband is now employed in India. The child is now aged 2½ years (date of birth : 08/11/2007). The petitioner left for U.K to take up employment in July 2008. Later, the respondent also went to U.K leaving the child with his parents. The respondent also secured some employment in the U.K. But, unfortunately, differences of opinion developed between them and the respondent returned to India. It is submitted that when the petitioner went to U.K for the first time, the child was with her mother and later the child was taken to W.P.C.No.23179 of 2010 2 the house of the respondent. There, the respondent's father and mother are there. Consequent to disagreements between the parties, the respondent came back to India and started living and working here. The petitioner continued to be employed abroad. 2. The petitioner has now come on leave. She has to go back to her place of employment (U.K) on 05/08/2010. In these circumstances, the petitioner claimed that an interim order may be passed allowing her to keep the child in her custody till she leaves India on 05/08/2010. The family Court allowed the same only in part by the impugned order. 3. We are further informed that, in addition to O.P.No.1149/2010 pending before the Family Court filed by the petitioner for custody of the child, another petition is pending before the Family Court as O.P.No.205/2010 between the parties. That is a petition in which the respondent/husband has claimed a decree for divorce. That petition is also pending now. 4. We attempted to interact with the parties in an attempt to persuade them to come to a harmonious settlement. We must say that our attempts today have not succeeded. 5. Parties want to pursue both O.P.Nos.205 & 1149 of 2010 which are pending before the Family Court. However, we find that they have agreed upon certain terms regarding custody W.P.C.No.23179 of 2010 3 of the child until the Family Court passes appropriate orders in the O.P. Accordingly, we note that the parties agree and we direct as follows: i) Whenever the petitioner comes to her native place on leave from her place of employment, the child shall be handed over by the respondent to the petitioner to be kept in her custody till she leaves her native place to her place of employment. ii) During all Sundays, (subject to any unforeseen eventualities which may intervene), the mother or brother of the petitioner can go to the house of the respondent and take the child at 10 a.m in the morning. The child shall be returned at the house of the respondent before 7 p.m on the same day. iii) If there be any eventuality which prevents the child being handed over on one Sunday, the child will be so handed over to the mother/brother of the petitioner on another mutually agreed upon date before the next Sunday. 6. Parties and counsel respond positively to our suggestions and agree that attempts shall be made, while the O.Ps are pending before the Family Court, to harmoniously settle their disputes - either to rejoin or to part as friends. 7. It is made clear that the arrangement hereby struck shall not fetter either party to seek appropriate relief and to W.P.C.No.23179 of 2010 4 raise appropriate contentions before the Family Court in the pending proceedings. 8. The respondent agrees to surrender the passport of the child before the Family Court before 04/08/2010. This is to allay the apprehension of the petitioner that the child may be taken to any place beyond the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The respondent undertakes that the child shall not be taken out of such jurisdiction. 9. In terms of the above stipulations, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is modified. The child, who has been brought to Court, is handed over to the petitioner. The child shall be returned at the house of the respondent by the brother of the petitioner by 7 p.m on 05/08/2010. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.23179 of 2010 5 W.P.C.No.23179 of 2010 6 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 19/07/2010