Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P., Johnson John, JJ
Bibin Thankachan – Appellant
Versus
Flemil Thomas – Respondent
OP (FC) NO. 272 OF 2026 | OP(G&W) NO.689 OF 2025 | OP(G&W) No.214 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.Alex K.John, Shri.Babu M.T., Smt.Fida Husna P.P., Smt.Anusree S. Kumar, Smt.Sreenu Raj N., Shri.Nithin C. Regi, Smt.Reena Jacob, Shri.Ninan Thomas, Shri.Gego George, Shri.Muhammed Zain Shabeer P.P.
Separate custody petition unnecessary when prior petition pending; claims resolved in existing case.
Headnote:First Paragraph: Under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, rival petitions for custody of minor child were filed before Family Court. Petitioner sought direction for pronouncement of order dismissing joint trial application. Court found second petition unnecessary as claims could be resolved in first petition. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as whether separate custody petition was needed when prior petition pending. Ratio: Filing separate petition wholly unnecessary; all rival claims resolvable in pending OP(G&W) No.689/2025. Last Paragraph: Original Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks urgent order on joint trial dismissal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. separate custody petition deemed wholly unnecessary. (Para 3) |
| 3. op dismissed; contentions reserved in main case. (Para 4) |
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Hon'ble Family Court, Kalpetta “….for pronouncement of vide separate order in I.A.No.5/2026 of OP(G&W) No.689/2025 which is the joint trial application and also to serve the certified copy of the same very urgently to the petitioner herein for challenging the same before the Hon'ble Appellate Court.”
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the instance of the respondent, OP(G&W) No.689 of 2025 is pending consideration before the Family Court, Kalpetta. It is submitted that the petitioner has also filed OP(G&W) No.214 of 2026 before the Family Court, Kalpetta, and an application seeking a joint trial of both cases has been dismissed by the Family Court, Kalpetta.
3. A perusal of Ext.P1, which is the copy of the petition in OP(G&W) No.689 of 2025, and a perusal of Ext.P3 petition filed as OP(G&W) No.214 of 2026, we notice that both these petitions are for custody of the minor child born out of the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. We are unable to discern the reasons behind the petitioner’s decision to submit a separate application under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 , as OP(G&W)No.214 of 2026, when OP(G&W) No.689 of 2025 was already pending at the instance of the respondent. We are constrained to observe that the filing of a separate petition by the petitioner was wholly unnecessary as all questions arising out of the rival claims of the petitioner and the respondent could be resolved by the adjudication of OP(G&W) No.689 of 2025.
4. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the reliefs sought for in this Original Petition need not be considered. As already observed the rival claims for custody of the minor shall be considered by the Family Court, Kalpetta, in OP(G&W)No.689 of 2025. Thus, the Original petition will stand dismissed, reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all the contentions in OP(G&W)No.689 of 2025.
