AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—This petition is filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of petitioner''s son Mohammed Sinan. Allegation of illegal detention is made against respondents 1 and 2. Petitioner relied on Ext.P1 agreement. As per clause 4 of Ext.P1 agreement petitioner and his relatives were entitled to see the child for six months and thereafter for two days in a month, the petitioner could take the child where he resides inter alia. Alleging violation of Ext.P1 agreement petition is filed.
We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The first respondent is the former wife of the petitioner. The second respondent is stated to be her brother. We have passed order dated 22.3.2012. Pursuant to the said order, the child has been produced today by the paternal grandparents of the child. We interacted with the first respondent and her mother. Thereafter, we interacted with the petitioner and his parents. No doubt, the learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that the first respondent has moved the Family Court, Muvattupuzha by filing O.P.No.117/2012 seeking relief of cancellation of clause 4 of Ext.P1 agreement. He further points out that the Family Court has granted an order of injunction restraining the petitioner from removing the child forcibly from the custody of the first respondent. No doubt, according to the party respondents, the petitioner has some mental problems and the clause also is against the provisions of Mohammedan Law. It is also pointed out that giving overnight custody of the child to the petitioner may not be in the best interest of the child. We feel that, in the interest of justice, till a decision is taken by the Family Court, Muvattupuzha in OP No.117/2012 the petitioner must be permitted to have the company of his child, no doubt, with certain safeguards. We notice that the child is a boy child aged 4 years. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Petition (Criminal) as follows:
(i) We direct that the first respondent or her representative will bring the child Mohammed Sinan before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha (before the Sheristdar) between 10.30 A.M and 10.45 A.M and hand over custody of the child to the petitioner. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall be present along with his father. The petitioner can take the child and keep custody at his house where his parents live at Aluva till 5.30 P.M on the following Sunday. On Sunday at 5.30 P.M the petitioner along with father will give back the child to the first respondent at her residence.
(ii) The petitioner shall not take the child out by himself.
(iii) The paternal grandparents of the child will ensure the safety and health of the child.
(iv) Overnight custody can be enjoyed by the petitioner only if at least one of his parents is also there in the house during the night.
(v) This arrangement will come into force from the third Saturday of April, 2012 (21.4.2012) and the petitioner is to return the child on 22.4.2012 as aforesaid.
(vi) We further order that this arrangement will continue unless it is modified by the Family Court.
Needless to say that the Family Court, Muvattupuzha will consider O.P.117/2012 untrammelled by any observations made by us in this judgment or by the judgment