Anupriya vs State Of Kerala

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J

Petitioner is the former wife of the third respondent. Petitioner divorced the third respondent on 07.01.2019. A male child born to the parties who is

aged 6 years now, has been residing with the petitioner ever since 16.06.2018, in terms of Ext.P1 agreement. As per Ext.P1 agreement, the third

respondent is permitted to take the child to his residence on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. It is alleged by the petitioner that though the

petitioner permitted the third respondent to take the child to his residence on 11.04.2021 to celebrate Vishu on a request made by him, he did not return

the child. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the various efforts taken by the petitioner thereafter to contact the third respondent and to pursue him

to return the child did not evoke any response. It is further alleged by the petitioner that though the petitioner preferred complaints to respondents 1

and 2, action is not being taken by them. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the respondents to produce the child before this court alleging

that the custody of the child by the third respondent is unlawful.

In terms of the interim order passed by this court on 28.05.2021, respondents 1 and 2 were directed to produce the child before this court. 3.

Pursuant to the said interim order, the child is produced before us today by the second respondent through video conferencing. The petitioner and

the third respondent also appeared before us through video conferencing.

We have interacted with the third respondent. He submitted that the custody of the child has already been handed over to the petitioner. The third

respondent did not dispute the fact that the child should have been returned by him to the petitioner immediately after the Vishu. The excuse put

forward by the third respondent for not returning the child to the petitioner is that he could not do so on account of the restrictions due to the pandemic

Covid-19.

The petitioner acknowledged the fact that the custody of the child has been handed over to her by the third respondent.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the relationship between the parties, we are of the view that it is unnecessary

to go into the justifiability of the conduct of the third respondent in not returning the child to the petitioner, and the matter can be closed recording the

submissions made by the parties.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is closed recording the submissions made by the petitioner as also the third respondent. It is, however, made

clear that this judgment will not preclude the third respondent from initiating proceedings in accordance with law concerning the custody of the child, if

he has any subsisting grievance.