Antony Dominic, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur in G.O.P. No.772/13.

2. The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife whose marriage was solemnized on 12/5/2008. Even prior to the marriage, the respondent was working as a Nurse in Ireland and subsequent to the marriage, though the appellant joined her in Ireland, he could not secure a regular employment there. On 27/5/2009, the respondent gave birth to a son Alan Puthoor Rimy.

3. While the couple were in Ireland, problems arose in their matrimonial life and now they are living separately, wife in Ireland and the husband in India. Subsequently, there were litigations between the parties regarding the custody of the child and when the wife was in India, she was given his interim custody and she returned the child to the husband when she went back to Ireland. In May, 2013, the wife again came to India, when according to her, the husband refused to give custody of the child and thereupon, she filed G.O.P No.772/2013 before the Family Court for custody of the child.

4. The appellant entered appearance and filed his objections. He denied all allegations against him and contended that the welfare of the child will be served better if the child is left in his custody. The respondent and her father were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and the appellant was examined as RW1. Exts.A1 to A9 and Exts.B1 to B10 were also marked in evidence. The Family Court finally passed the impugned order, the operative portion of which reads thus;

"In the result, the petition is allowed and the minor is given in the custody of the petitioner and she is allowed to take him to Ireland. She has to bring the child to Kerala twice in a year, that is, to say every six months and hand over his custody to the respondent for a minimum period of 10 days. She has to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and produce bank guarantee for Rs.5 lakhs each by any of her two relatives who are residing in Kerala before taking the child to Ireland. The respective parties are directed to suffer their respective costs in this petition."

5. It is this order which is under challenge before us.

6. We heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent wife.

7. Two contentions were raised. The first contention was that the application filed under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 claiming custody of the child, who is in the custody of his father, is not maintainable. The second contention was that once the child is allowed to be taken to Ireland and the wife and the child acquires citizenship of that country, the enforcement of the order, in the event of its non compliance, will not be possible. Therefore, according to him, the Family Court should not have passed the impugned order.

8. The first contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant has to be answered with reference to the provisions of Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

9. Section 25 of the Act reads thus;

"25. Title of guardian to custody of ward (1) If a ward leaves or is removed from the custody of a guardian of his person, the Court, if it is of opinion that it will be for the welfare of the ward to return to the custody of his guardian, may make an order for is return and for the purpose of enforcing the order may cause the ward to be arrested and to be delivered into the custody of the guardian.

(2) For the purpose of arresting the ward, the Court may exercise the powers conferred on a Magistrate of the first class by section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882).

(3) The residence of a ward against the will of his guardian with a person who is not his guardian does not of itself terminate the guardianship."

Language of Section 25(1) shows that if a ward "leaves or is removed from the custody of a guardian" of his person and if the Court is of opinion that it will be "for the w