Abraham K. Mathen vs Dr. Preethi Yohannan

R. Basant, J.—The parties to this Mat. Appeal are spouses who have a strained relationship between them. A prayer for custody and a prayer for divorce were pending before the Family Court. They have a child and the child is aged 4 years now. The application for guardianship was settled at the Lok Adalath and Annexure 1 award was passed by the Lok Adalath on the consent of the parties. In the divorce application, the respondent/husband filed objections. In the objections, he evidently raised a prayer that he may be allowed to visit the child on 31/01/2010 and thereafter on every alternate Saturdays. Arrangements regarding visitorial rights were already made in Annexure 1. The court below passed the impugned order under which the respondent/wife is "directed to produce the child before the Counsellor Smt. Chitra Devi from 11 a.m till 1 p.m on 31/1/2010". This appeal is seen preferred against the same direction.

The learned Counsel for the respondent raises an objection that this order is purely interlocutory and is not hence appealable u/s 19. We find merit in that contention. Arrangements regarding visitorial rights of the appellant is stipulated in Annexure 1 award of the Lok Adalath. That is an executable order before the Family Court now.

Why then did the Family Court issue the impugned direction? The learned Counsel for the respondent explains that the appellant is a total stranger to the four year old child and there was reluctance on the part of the child to go with the appellant. It is only to tide over that difficult situation that the Family Court issued the present directions at the instance of the appellant. The appellant can have no grievance at all now. The respondent is willing to scrupulously comply with the stipulations in Annexure 1 order. The child shall be produced before the court as directed in that order. The impugned order does not, in these circumstances, warrant any interference, submits the learned Counsel. Annexure 1 award can be executed and even without any further directions from the court, the respondent shall comply with the directions in Annexure 1 award, submits the learned Counsel for the respondent. Until the child becomes acquainted and friendly with the appellant, the said direction in Annexure 1 cannot be harmoniously enforced and that is the only reason why the court below issued the impugned order. The purpose of that order was only to ensure proper compliance with Annexure 1 order.

We find force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent. We are not persuaded to agree that the purely interim directions issued in the impugned order deserves or warrants interference in appeal. We record the submission of the respondent that the conditions in Annexure 1 shall be strictly complied with. The Family Court shall ensure that the said directions are complied with. Appropriate further directions to facilitate the proper implementation of the award in Annexure 1 can be issued by the Family Court from time to time.

The learned Counsel for the appellant prays that on 30/5/2010, there is some function in the church and the appellant may be permitted to take the child along with him. The child is to be produced before the Family Court on 29/05/2010. The request can be made before the Family Court and the Family Court, considering all circumstances, including the level of acquaintance/relationship built between the appellant and the child, shall be at liberty to pass appropriate further orders.

In the result, this Mat. Appeal is dismissed with the above observations.

Hand over copy of this order to both parties today itself.