Kerala High Court
Sunand.T.S vs K.R.Satheesan on 7 June, 2010
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12051 of 2010(O)
1. SUNAND.T.S, S/O.SIVASAMY, AGED 38,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.R.SATHEESAN,S/O.LATE V.KOCHUNNU PILLAI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.R.AZAD BABU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :07/06/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.12051 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The fight between son-in-law and father-in-law is concerning a minor child aged about seven years. His mother committed suicide . The child has been in the custody of petitioner for quite some time thereafter. Respondent, the maternal grandfather of the child filed O.P.(G&W) No.57 of 2009 in the court of learned District Judge, Alappuzha for custody of the minor child and moved I.A.No.773 of 2009 for interim custody during the previous summer vacation. The application (I.A.No.773 of 2009) was vehementally opposed by petitioner on various grounds. Learned District Judge as per Ext.P9, order dated 31.03.2010 allowed respondent to have custody of the child from 07.04.2010 to 02.05.2010 (during summer vacation) and directed petitioner to produce the child in the court below on 07.04.2010 at 11 a.m. to be handed over to the respondent. Without loosing time, petitioner challenged that order in this Court by this Writ Petition and obtained an order of interim stay for two months on 06.04.2010. That stay is in force even now. Now I.A.No.773 of 2009, the order under challenge and this Writ Petition have become infructuous since custody of the child was granted to the respondent for the period from 07.04.2010 to 02.05.2010 and that period has run out.
WP(C) No.12051/2010 2
2. Learned counsel for respondent stated that respondent may be permitted to move application for interim custody of the child during the next Onam vacation. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner has serious objection in giving interim custody of the child to the respondent. I make it clear that if any application is preferred by the respondent for interim custody of the child for any period during pendency of O.P.(G&W) No.57 of 2009 it will be open to the petitioner to raise appropriate contentions as provided under law.
With the above observation this Writ Petition is closed, observing that I.A.No.773 of 2009 and the order passed thereon have become infructuous.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks