Leena vs Ajikumar

K.M. Joseph, J.—The petitioner calls in question, the orders passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, Exts.P3 and P4. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows:

Petitioner is the respondent in O.P. (G & W) No. 158/10, filed by the respondent, who is none other than her husband, seeking to appoint him as legal guardian of minor male child, aged 6 years. The respondent also sought interim custody of the child, vide Ext.P1 application. The petitioner filed Ext.P2, raising the question of maintainability. The court below dismissed the application with regard to maintainability, by Ext.P4 and allowed the application for interim custody, by Ext.P3.

We heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Gopakumar R. Thaliyal. He would fervently press before us the contention that the court below ought not have given temporary custody of the child to the respondent. It is pointed out that the minor child is suffering from neuro problem and on the one hand, petitioner had no objection in the respondent seeing the child, the court below should not have handed over the temporary custody of the minor child to the father.

At the first place, we must remind ourselves that this is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is meant to correct the jurisdictional illegalities and errors. There can be no doubt that the Family Court has jurisdiction to pass orders relating to temporary custody of the child. We have perused the order. We do not find any jurisdictional error being committed by the Family Court. We also notice that the period of temporary custody will actually expire today. We are of the view that interference with such orders would in fact, result in manifest injustice. Accordingly, we decline to exercise the jurisdiction and the Original Petition stands dismissed.