Family Courts must observe procedural fairness and cannot change prior custody orders without a hearing, emphasizing the need for due process.

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This original petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

i. Set aside Exts.P4 and P5 Orders to the extent it refuses interim custody of the child granted as per Ext.P2 and as prayed in Ext.P3.

ii.Issue appropriate orders granting interim custody of the minor child Alvin Ajith Marian to the petitioner for a continuous period of 60 days from the date of order in this case.

2. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by orders passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam vide Exts.P4 and P5. According to the petitioner, when Ext.P2 order is in force in regard to the interim custody, the Family Court could not have passed Exts.P4 and P5 orders in reviewing the same, that too in a suo motu proceedings.

3. In fact, by earlier order, produced as Ext.P2, the Family Court ordered to give interim custody of the child to the father, who is the petitioner herein during the summer holidays. Thereafter, on the date the petitioner came to collect the child, the Family Court suo motu passed an order to keep the earlier order in abeyance, taking note of the pandemic situation in the State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Family Court has no power to suo motu review the earlier order passed in the matter. The learned counsel took serious exceptions to the procedure and the course adopted by the Family Court. It is submitted that without affording proper hearing, such order has been passed.

5. As revealed from the order, the Family Court resorted to pass such an order taking note of the pandemic situation in the State.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even before passing the order, the respondent had conveyed to the petitioner's counsel that the order has been stayed.

7. However, the learned counsel for the respondents refuted the above submission and submitted that there was no such occasion for conveying to the petitioner in regard to the keeping abeyance of the order.

8. Anyway, as the matter stands now, the period mentioned in the earlier order has been worked out.

By the order of this Court, a short period of interim custody has been given to the father. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner could not take custody during summer holidays, we are of the view that custody of the child should be given to the father on 13.8.2021 at 5 p.m. through the Family Court premises, Ernakulam and the child shall be handed over to the mother on 18.08.2021 at 5 p.m. in the same premises. Taking note of the fact that the matter is of the year 2013, the Family Court shall ensure that all cases between the parties including the divorce petition are disposed of on or before 30.09.2021.

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE ln APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF O.P.2295/2013 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-03-2021 IN I.A.

937/2021 IN O.P.NO 2295/2013.

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF I.A.NO.2087/21 IN O.P NO.2295/2013.

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-04-2021 IN I.A.NO.937/21 IN OP NO.2295/2013.

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-04-2021 IN I.A.NO.2087/21 IN O.P NO.2295/2013.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXT.R1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED

29.06.2021.