Court modifies custody temporarily due to father's violation of Family Court order, granting interim custody to mother pending review.

This petition invoking the habeas corpus jurisdiction of this Court is preferred at the instance of the biological mother of two minor children, Aaryan K. Jithin, aged 11 years (DOB: 24.01.2014), and Aaradhya K. Jithin, aged 8 years (DOB: 08.10.2017). In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner-mother of the children, that by virtue of Ext.P1 judgment of the Family Court, Thrissur in O.P. No. 2008/2024, while the marriage between the petitioner and the 8^th respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce, it was made clear that the permanent custody of the children shall be with the 8^th respondent-father. The judgment, however, clarified that whenever the 8^th respondent-father was going abroad or outside the State of Kerala in India, the children would be entrusted to the petitioner-mother, and it was only on the return of the 8^th respondent-father that the petitioner-mother was obliged to hand over custody of the children to the 8^th respondent-father. The petitioner-mother was also entitled to interim custody from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on any Sunday of a month from the place where the children were residing.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, contrary to the terms of Ext.P1 judgment, the 8^th respondent took the children to Mauritius and got them admitted to a school there, and he has been living in Mauritius with the children, thereby depriving her of the visitation rights envisaged for her under the judgment of the Family Court referred to above.

3. When the matter came up for admission before this Court, while directions were issued by this Court to the 8^th respondent to have the children produced before this Court in December so that the petitioner could have interim custody during the Christmas holidays, a submission was made on behalf of the 8^th respondent by his counsel that he was not able to come to India because he did not have leave from his employment abroad. This Court then directed the Central Government Counsel to ascertain the possibility of the children being brought to India for the petitioner to have access to them. The subsequent orders issued by this Court clearly bring out the conduct of the 8^th respondent, who has been defaulting on the directions issued by this Court for bringing the children to India. It was through coercive measures adopted by this Court that he ultimately appeared before this Court with the children today. On our interaction with the 8^th respondent, it has become apparent to us that he has scant regard for the directions in Ext.P1 judgment of the Family Court, and for this act of defiance, we are of the view that at least for the time being, he must be denied the privileges that he obtained through the judgment of the Family Court.

4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the 8^th respondent that steps have been taken by the 8^th respondent before the Family Court for reviewing/modifying the conditions in Ext.P1 judgment. Under such circumstances, we feel that till such time as the Family Court passes orders on the said application, the arrangement with regard to the custody of the children must be that, notwithstanding the presence of the 8^th respondent in India, the interim custody of the children shall be with the petitioner-mother, who was deprived of her privileges under Ext.P1 judgment because of the conduct of the 8^th respondent. We feel this to be the apposite course of action, since the petitioner-mother has been before us in these proceedings expressing her desire to be with the children for some time now.

This writ petition is thus closed by permitting the petitioner- mother to take custody of the children from this Court and produce the children before the Family Court when the proceedings instituted at the instance of the 8threspondent are take