IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP (FC).No. 1215 of 2011(R) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 432/2011 IN OP.65/2009 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SMITHARAJ, AGED 30, D/O. KRISHNARAJ “SMITHA NIVAS” SANTHI NAGAR KRISHNAPURAM, OLLUKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT: --------------- HARIKUMAR, S/O. GANGADHARAN PILLAI ILLATHAYYATH HOUSE VALLAMKUKULAM P.O. KIZHAKUMURI, ERAVIPERUR THIRUVALLA, PIN 689 541. THIS O.P (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C.) No. 1215 of 2011 R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Joseph J., The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The Family Court, Thrissur by impugned order directed the interim custody of the minor child, who is now aged 4 years (as stated in the order) to the respondent. The respondent/father is working in Gulf. He filed an application stating that he is going back to Gulf on 20.3.2011 and he wanted to see the child and prayed for temporary custody for a few days. The order shows that when this petition came up for hearing, the petitioner was directed to produce the minor child on 16.3.2011, but she did not appear and she did not produce the child. On 17.3.2011 O.P.(F.C.) No. 1215 of 2011 :2: also the petitioner did not appear and child was not produced, though time was granted for the same. According to the petitioner, the child was laid up. A counter affidavit was filed on 17.3.2011 to the effect that the respondent is suffering from mental illness and he has no love and affection towards the child. Thereafter the Court did not find any reason to deny the respondent to have temporary custody. The Court took note of the fact that the respondent wanted the custody of the child as he was leaving to Gulf on 20.3.2011. The Court ordered temporary custody to the respondent/father from 10 a.m. on 18.3.2011 till 10 a.m. on 20.3.2011. It was directed if the child requires any treatment, the same was to be provided by the respondent/father. Police assistance was also provided. 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sreekumar G. He has pointed out the difficulty in handing over the custody to the respondent, who is residing in Thiruvalla. 4. We must remind ourselves that being a proceeding under Article 227, only limited grounds exist. Even otherwise we do not see how the petitioner could complain when the respondent/father is O.P.(F.C.) No. 1215 of 2011 :3: given two days custody and when he is going back after leave. 5. We see no reason to interfere with the order. The O.P. (F.C) will stand dismissed. K.M. JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/