Kerala High Court
A.Jameela vs Masuda Muhammedali @ Indira on 8 July, 2010
Bench: R.Basant, M.C.Hari Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 828 of 2009()
1. A.JAMEELA, W/O. KARIPODY AHMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MASUDA MUHAMMEDALI @ INDIRA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
For Respondent :SMT.P.K.PRIYA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :08/07/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
MAT APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2009
============================
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
This appeal has come up for admission. The respondent has already entered appearance. The delay of 1069 days has been condoned by a separate order passed today. The learned counsel have advanced detailed arguments.
2. A brief synoptical resume of events which led to the impugned order appears to be absolutely essential for a proper disposal of this appeal.
3. The appellant is the mother-in-law of the respondent. The respondent was a Hindu. She had fallen in love with the son of the appellant. They got married in November 1997. One female child Fathima Afree was born in August 1998. The marital bliss was short lived and the son of the appellant, i.e. the husband of the respondent expired due to illness in December 1998. The respondent was employed at Mumbai. We do not intend to enter upon unnecessary controversies. After the death of the husband, the child was with the grand- mother/appellant. The respondent-mother was pursuing her MA 828/2010 2 employment at Mumbai. The child was allegedly kept away from her mother, the respondent herein, and the respondent was obliged to approach the High Court at Mumbai, alleging that the child was illegally detained by the appellant and her other sons. The child was produced before the Mumbai High Court. Interim custody was granted to the respondent. At that juncture, O.P. No.14/2002 was filed by the appellant herein before the District Court, Kasaragod, claiming authority to keep the minor child in her custody. The High Court disposed of the habeas corpus petition with the observation that the District Court must dispose of O.P.No.14/2002 filed before it regarding the custody of the child.
4. The District Court disposed of O.P.No.14/2002. The respondent was held entitled to the custody of the child. The child was attending school at Kasaragod, the place of residence of the appellant. The District Court directed that such custody be continued till the end of the educational year. The child was directed to be handed over to the respondent-mother after that educational year ended.
MA 828/2010 3
5. There was a further direction that after so handing over the child to the respondent, during all vacations, the grand- mother, i.e. appellant herein shall be entitled to keep custody of the child for 10 days.
6. The order was challenged before this Court and the challenge was rejected by judgment in M.F.A.No.193/2004. We are not adverting to what transpired during the pendency of that appeal before this Court when this Court attempted a harmonious settlement between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent has narrated before us the events that transpired.
7. Notwithstanding the order passed by the Family Court which was upheld by this Court, custody of the child was not handed over to the mother as directed by the District Court. This obliged the respondent to approach the Family Court, which had been constituted by then, claiming execution of the order regarding custody of the child. The child could not be traced in spite of the efforts of the Family Court. The child was removed from the Kerala State frustrating the efforts of its mother to execute the order regarding custody.
MA 828/2010 4
8. Helplessly, the respondent came before this Court and filed W.P.(C)No.196/2005 in September 2005 for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and produce the child. The other sons of the appellant except one came before the court and reported that they did not know the whereabouts of the appellant, the said one son and the child. The child was traced ultimately from some place in Karnataka on 13/11/2010. The child was produced before this Court and this Court handed over custody of the child to the respondent. Accordingly, the child continues in the custody of the respondent even now.
9. The appellant wanted to enforce her right under the order in O.P.No.14/2002 to get custody of the child for 10 days during vacation. The respondent, on the other hand, wanted the said condition regarding custody of the child for 10 days during vacation to be lifted in the light of her bitter experience after the order in O.P.14/2002 was passed. That petition, I.A.No.155/2006 has been disposed of by the impugned order. The Family Court has allowed the application and lifted the said condition regarding custody of the child for 10 days during vacation by the appellant.
MA 828/2010 5
10. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. We have heard both counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned order on various grounds.
11. First of all, it is contended that the Family Court lacks jurisdictional competence to alter/modify the order passed in O.P.No.14/2002 as the same has merged with the order in appeal passed by this Court in M.F.A.No.193/2004. We find no merit in this contention. We will assume without any controversy that the order in O.P.No.14/2002 has merged with the order in M.F.A.No.193/2004. What has merged is only the order which stipulates that in the event of change of circumstances, the parties can approach the Family Court for alterations/modifications of the order. There is nothing in the order in the M.F.A. which takes away that option/jurisdiction of the Family Court to modify the order, if circumstances warrant such modification. In these circumstances, the plea that the order in O.P.No.14/2002 has merged with the judgment in M.F.A.No.193/2004 and consequently the Family Court lacks jurisdictional competence to modify the order in O.P.No.14/2002 has got to fall to the ground. That challenge is rejected. MA 828/2010 6
12. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the Family Court/District Court and the High Court and even the Supreme Court in an SLP had all taken note of the need for the grandchild to build a healthy and harmonious relationship with her grandmother and other relatives of the husband. That is the reason why such a stipulation regarding custody for 10 days was made by the District Court. The subsequent modification by the impugned order eats into the very vitals of the order in O.P.No.14/2002. The court had ignored and overlooked that very fundamental concern which must be reckoned as a concern in the interest of the welfare of the child. For the welfare of the child and her total and comprehensive development and growth, he must be granted opportunity to interact with the paternal grandmother and the relatives of her deceased father. In not applying itself to that vital concern, the court below has committed a grievous error warranting appellate correction, contends the counsel.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, contends that the bitter experience which the respondent, a helpless widow had to face, subsequent to the MA 828/2010 7 commencement of the proceedings, must reveal to the court her unfortunate plight. That must help the court to understand her opposition to the continuance of the condition. If the child were handed over to the grand mother for 10 days during the vacation, it is very likely that the respondent will have to face similar situation in future. What has already happened can safely be reckoned as an indication of events that are likely to happen in future. In any view of the matter, no condition may be allowed to remain which will oblige the helpless respondent to hand over the child to the grand mother and inflict on herself the trauma which she has been forced to endure after the order passed in O.P.No.14/2002
14. We did attempt to work out a harmonious settlement of the dispute. We remember that such attempts were made by us even before the disposal of W.P.CNo.31638/06. The parties did not reach any agreement even then. We have pursued our efforts during the pendency of our present proceedings.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent , to a specific suggestion by this Court, agrees that the respondent shall have no objection against the appellant visiting the child at Mumbai MA 828/2010 8 and even residing with the child at the house of the respondent during vacation. But the obligation to take the child to Kasaragod where the respondent had to face bitter adverse consequences may be avoided. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that the appellant is a woman in her early 50s. She has a brother who is permanently settled in Mumbai. From Kasaragod to Mumbai, effective means of effortless travel are now available. If the appellant is really interested in maintaining the relationship with the child, the respondent shall accommodate that concern by agreeing to permit the appellant to have interactions with the child at the residence of the respondent at Mumbai. The respondent is not amenable to any condition obliging her to leave the child with the grand mother at Kasaragod.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent does not accept this suggestion. He submits that the appellant cannot undertake a trip to Mumbai to see the child. Alternatively , we attempted to work out the possibility of the respondent and the child together visiting Kasaragod at expenses to be provided by the appellant and the appellant being permitted to have MA 828/2010 9 interactions with the child at a safe venue in Kerala during vacations. The appellant as well as the respondent are not amenable to that suggestion.
17. What remains to be considered is only whether the order passed by the court below warrants interference or not.
18. We have narrated the sequence of events. We compassionately appreciate the apprehensions and concerns of the respondent mother, a helpless widow. We take note of her apprehensions regarding her inability to fight her powerful and influential (and dare devil) in-laws who have shown scout regard for law and orders of courts. We note that the Family Court has, in a humane manner, taken note of those concerns. In any view of the matter, we are not persuaded to agree that the order passed by the Family court warrants any interference invoking appellate jurisdiction vested in us under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
19. The sequence of events that have taken place after the passing of the order in O.P.No.14/2002 compellingly justify the course followed by the Family Court.
20. However, we take note of the fact that the wishes of MA 828/2010 10 the appellant-grand mother, if the same were genuine, to have interactions with the child has to be accommodated and provided for. We are satisfied that the offer made by the respondent that the appellant-grand mother can visit the child at Mumbai and stay with her, if necessary, for 10 days during the vacation can be accepted and the impugned order can be upheld subject to that modification. To that extent alone, this appeal can succeed.
21. In the result, this appeal is dismissed subject to the direction that during vacation once a year the appellant can have interactions with the child at the residence of the respondent at Mumbai. The appellant (and no other relatives of hers) can reside along with the respondent and child and have interactions with and company of the child for 10 days during one such vacation every year, after obtaining permission from the Family Court each year specifying the manner and details of such interactions/residence.
R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.
MA 828/2010 11