IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 1275 OF 2024 JUDGMENT DATED 11-11-2024 ARISING FROM : OP (FC) NO.448 OF 2024 REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

XXXX, AGED XXXX YEARS, XXXX.

BY ADVS. KARTHIKA MARIA ARUN THOMAS ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS JOE S. ADHIKARAM KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM LEAH RACHEL NINAN VEENA RAVEENDRAN ANJALY ELIAS SHYNI WILLIAM NAVYA SEBY RESPONDENT / PETITIONE R :

XXXX, AGED XXXX YEARS, XXXX.

BY ADV SHARAN SHAHIER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner seeks that the judgment of this Court dated 11.11.2024 be reviewed; and cites two grounds namely;

a) That he did not agree to the relocation of the children outside India; and that the consent recorded on his behalf was never given;

b) That the copies of the reports of Psychological counselling of the children must be made available to him; based on which alone, he will agree for the children to go abroad.

2. We do not require to speak on the veracity of the first contention because, when we considered this matter on 13.01.2025, the children were present before us; and they told us unequivocally that, what has been recorded by us in the judgment was exactly what their father had said in our Chambers in their presence. We recorded this in our order of the said date, which, for the purpose of full reading is extracted under:

On 5.12.24, both sides had sought for an opportunity to settle the issues between them, if possible, through mediation. The matter was then listed to 19.12.2024; on which day, the parties wanted this case to be called today, with both of them offering to be present personally, along with the children. 2. We interacted with the children today, at the request of both sides. The children told us that they want to go with their mother to Dubai; affirming that the judgment sought to be reviewed was delivered since their father had expressly agreed that they could do so; and that what is recorded by us in the judgment is exactly is what they told us.

3. However, Smt.Geetha Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Karthika Maria - appearing for the petitioner/father, asserted that, her client never agreed to allow the children to travel to Dubai; and reiterated that his consent recorded by us is incorrect, further contending that what the children now say is also incorrect. She then added that, her client is entitled to the copies of the reports obtained by this Court from the Psychologist; and that it is only if the same is made available, will her client take a decision to allow the children to travel.

4. Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Sreekala - appearing for the respondent, however, vehemently argued that, what is indited in the judgment is totally true; and that this is now unequivocally affirmed by the children also. He, however, expressed some reservation in the “psychological report” being made available to the parties, saying that it is possible that they will misuse it against each other, which may have repercussions against the children.

5. Obviously, there are several factual issues involved; but, prima facie, we must record that the averment in the petition seeking review, that the record of consent we have mentioned in the judgment was obtained incorrectly, may not be the truth. In fact, the children also have spoken on this, as we have said above; but we choose to speak about it in detail on a later date.

6. As the matters now stand, since the controversy is still open, we will have to hear the review on its merits.

List for such purpose on 7.2.2025.

3. On the aspect of the Reports of counselling of the children, we were and are certainly of the view that it can be made available to the pa