SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9010

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JJ
BIJAY RAJ MENON – Appellant
Versus
ARATHY RAMACHANDRAN – Respondent
OP (FC) 397/2024



Advocates:
M.T.SURESHKUMAR, P.S.BIJU, MANJUSHA K, SREELAKSHMI SABU, SRI. RAHUL SUNIL

The court held that the petitioner's remedies to seek custody or visitation rights are available before the Family Court, and it is not necessary for the High Court to intervene at this stage.

Headnote:

Custody - Family Law - Sections 7, 8, 9 - The court allowed the petitioner-husband visitation rights to his children for two weeks, as the respondent-wife was denying him access under the guise of a previous court order. The court held that the petitioner's remedies to seek custody or visitation rights are available before the Family Court, and it is not necessary for the High Court to intervene at this stage.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order of the Family Court that directed him not to take 'forcible custody' of his children. The petitioner, who was in Singapore, had come to India solely to spend time with his children, but the respondent-wife was denying him even visitation rights under the guise of the Family Court order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the previous directions given by another bench of the High Court for the petitioner to meet the children twice a week and join their second child's celebrations had been complied with. The court proposed to continue this arrangement for another two weeks, as the petitioner's remedies to seek custody or visitation rights are available before the Family Court, and it is not necessary for the High Court to intervene at this stage.

Issues: Whether the Family Court order directing the petitioner not to take 'forcible custody' of the children should be set aside, as it is being misused by the respondent-wife to deny the petitioner even visitation rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's remedies to seek custody or visitation rights are available before the Family Court, and it is not necessary for the High Court to intervene at this stage. However, the court continued the previous arrangement for the petitioner to have custody of the children on Saturdays and Sundays for the next two weeks, as the parties had agreed to this.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the respondent-wife to allow the petitioner-husband custody of the children on Saturdays and Sundays for the next two weeks.

JUDGEMENT

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. The petitioner has impugned Ext.P3 order of the learned Family Court, Thiruvanathapuram, asserting that the same is liable to be misused by the respondent, by not permitting him visitation to his children.

2.Sri.P.S.Biju - learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that his client is presently in Singapore, who has come all the way to India solely to spend time with the children; but that under the guise of Ext.P3 order, wherein, he has been directed not to take “forcible custody” of the children, the respondent - wife is now denying even visitation. He thus prayed that Ext.P3 be set aside; and that this Court order an apposite arrangement between the parties.

3.We notice from the file that, when this writ petition was considered on 01.07.2024, another learned bench of this Court passed an order directing the respondent - wife to allow the husband to meet the children twice a week, for a period of one week; and also to permit him to join the celebrations of their second child on 05.07.2024.

4.Today, the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the afore directions have been complied without any event; and they also admitted that the said arrangment can continue for a period of two weeks, so that the petitioner can then move the Family Court appropriately for further orders.

5.We certainly propose to accede to the afore suggestion because, the petitioner has assailed Ext.P3 only to the extent to which he has been asked not to take “forcibly custody” of the minor children. His remedies before the Family court, to seek custody or visitation rights, are certainly available to him; and it would not be necessary for this Court to intervene at this stage at all. However, since the afore mentioned arragement has already been made and since the parties are also conceding that it can be continued for a period of another two weeks or so, we deem it appropriate to dispose this writ petition with the following directions:

    a.The respondent - wife is hereby ordered to allow the petitioner - husband custody of the children on Saturdays and Sundays for the next two weeks, namely on 13.07.2024 and 14.07.2024; and on 20.07.2024 and 21.07.2024. b.for the afore, the exchange of the children shall be at 10 a.m. on saturday and 5.00 p.m. on sunday both at the radio park, thiruvananthapuram, which place has been suggested by both sides.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top