AnilKumar.C.S v. Roshana Rajan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/23RD PHALGUNA, 1938 OP (FC).No. 316 of 2016 (R) -----------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 629/2015 AND THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 852/2015 AND I.A. 746/2015 IN O.P. 629/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ANILKUMAR.C.S, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.SREENIVAS,CHEMBAKAM VEETTIL, NEAR KANAKALAYA BANK, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673006. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ ROSHANA RAJAN, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.RAJAN.P.C, SARGAM KADALAYI, KURUVA.P.O, KANNUR-670 007. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN BY ADV. SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL BY ADV. SRI.P.SAJU BY ADV. SRI.NIAS MOOPAN BY ADV. SRI.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN (MANJERI) THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 22984/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (FC).No. 316 of 2016 (R) ------------------------------------ ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE LOK ADALATH KANNUR RECORDING THE SAID FACT IN TLSC KNR 112/12 DATED 27.04.2012 EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,KANNUR NUMBERED AS TLSC KNR 68/14 DATED 20.03.2014 EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE LOK ADALATH KANNUR RECORDEING THE SAID FACT TLSC KNR 68/14 DATED 14.06.2014 EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOK ADALATH IN PLC NO.68/14 DATED 14.05.2015 EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.629/2015 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR DATED ...07.2015 EXT. P6 : TRUE COPPY OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT TO O.P.NO.629/2015 DATED 12.10.2015 EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2016 IN I.A.852/2015 IN O.P.NO.629/2015 EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2016 IN I.A.745/2015 IN O.P.NO.629/2015 OF THE HONOURBLE FAMILY COURT,KANNUR EXT. P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2016 IN I.A.746/2015 IN O.P.NO.629/2015 OF THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT,KANNUR EXT. P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 02.02.2016 IN O.P.NO.629/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE COURT,KANNUR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- C.R. K. SURENDRA MOHAN & MARY JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C.) No. 316 of 2016 & W.P.(C) No. 22984 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2017 ## JUDGMENT ## Surendra Mohan, J. The issues that arise for consideration are common in both these cases. The parties are also the same. Therefore, these cases are considered and disposed of together. The petitioner in both these cases is the husband while the respondent in the O.P.(F.C.) is the wife. She is also the first respondent in W.P.(C) No. 22984 of 2016. The issue relates to custody of a minor girl child, who is aged about six years now. The parties are referred to in the manner in which they are arrayed in the O.P.(F.C.). 2. As already noticed above, the parties are husband and wife. However, they have separated, pursuant to marital discord. They have a female child born out of the wedlock, by name Advika Anil. The petitioner was at that time 2 O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. employed in the Gulf. Initially when the marital discord arose, the respondent had filed a petition before the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Kannur, which was numbered as TLSC KNR 12 of 2012. A settlement was arrived at between the parties. The parties agreed to reside together and the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1250/- per month as maintenance to his daughter with effect from 1.5.2012. After six months, the parties agreed to reside in a rented house. A copy of the award is Ext.P1. However, the said arrangements did not work and the respondent-wife filed another petition before the Taluk Legal Services Committee, which is evidenced herein by Ext.P2. It was numbered as P.L.C. 68 of 2014. It is alleged therein that, the earlier settlement had not worked due to violations on the part of the petitioner. In Ext.P2, an award was passed by the Lok Adalat at Kannur, which is evidenced herein by Ext.P3. O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 3 3. In Ext.P3, both parties agreed to obtain divorce by filing a joint petition before the Family Court, Kannur within one month. It is not in dispute that such a petition was filed and that a decree of divorce has since been passed. 4. With respect to the child, it has been agreed in Ext.P3 as follows: - (i) That the wife would hand over the child on 29.6.2014 to the husband to take the child to his house at Calicut in order to facilitate his mother to see the child. - (ii) That the wife shall accompany the child and the husband on that day. (iii) That the wife shall take back the child after permitting the child to spend three hours in the house of the husband. (iv) That the wife agreed to permit the husband to visit the child by handing over the child on every second Saturday at 10 a.m. from court complex, Kannur. (v) The husband shall return the child at 1 p.m. on the same day. O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 4 (vi) The husband agreed to ensure the physical and mental health of the child during his custody. The award Ext.P3 is dated 14.6.2014. 5. While so, the husband filed O.P. No. 629 of 2015 under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act for appointing himself as the guardian of the minor child and seeking her permanent custody. The Original Petition was contested by the wife, who filed a counter statement evidenced herein by Ext.P6. The husband also filed I.A. No. 745 of 2015 for an order prohibiting the wife from taking the child to Bangalore. The wife then filed I.A. No. 852 of 2015 contending that the Original Petition as well as the petition were not maintainable and seeking a dismissal of the said proceedings on the said ground. The husband filed I.A. No. 746 of 2015 seeking interim custody of the child. 6. The Family Court, Kannur considered the interlocutory applications, and by Exts. P7, P8 and P9 orders O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 5 all the applications were dismissed. As per Ext.P10 judgment, O.P. No. 629 of 2015 has also been dismissed. According to the Family Court, the said proceedings were not maintainable in view of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), that clothes an award of a Lok Adalat with finality. The said proceedings are under challenge in this Original Petition. 7. In W.P.(C) No. 22984 of 2016, the petitionerhusband has challenged the award of the Lok Adalat, which is produced in the proceedings as Ext.P4. The contentions urged being identical, both the cases are considered together. 8. According to Adv. Premnath, though Section 21 of the Act clothes an award of a Lok Adalat with finality, the same shall not apply to cases concerning custody of minor children. This is because, according to the learned counsel, the Supreme Court has consistently held that orders regarding custody of children cannot be considered to be final. In all O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 6 such cases, it is the welfare of the minor that is of paramount importance. Therefore, wherever there is change in circumstances, orders regarding custody are liable to be varied and altered. The above legal position, that applies to judicial proceedings, are applicable to proceedings before the Lok Adalat also. The counsel also places reliance on certain decisions of the Apex Court, to support his contentions. 9. It is further pointed out that, in Ext.P2 petition, custody of the child was not raised and therefore Ext.P3 award cannot be construed as having dealt with the custody of the child. The right of the father to seek custody of the child, in accordance with law cannot be defeated by placing reliance on Ext.P3. According to the learned counsel, the father is better suited, to be given custody of the child. His client, his mother and other relatives are at home who would be able to provide the child with proper love and emotional support. The respondent-wife has taken the child to Bangalore, thereby O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 7 preventing the petitioner from even having access to her. Therefore, he seeks interference with the impugned orders. It is contended that the Family Court ought to have considered the issues on the merits and erred in rejecting the proceedings finding that they were not maintainable. 10. According to Adv. K.V. Pavithran, who appears for the respondent-wife, the father has been adopting a totally irresponsible attitude towards his wife all along. Though, as per the initial award Ext.P1, it was agreed that maintenance would be paid to the child, no such payment was made. Nor were the other terms honoured. It was the said attitude of the husband that resulted in the second petition Ext.P2. As per Ext.P3, it is contended that the parties had agreed on all the aspects that were relevant at the time of final separation. The above included custody of the child. Our attention is drawn to the present petition filed, Ext.P5, to point out that, his allegations are mainly regarding violation of the terms of O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 8 Ext.P3. If so, his proper remedy is to seek execution of the award. It is contended that, the Family Court has rightly found the present proceedings to be not maintainable and dismissed the same. According to the learned counsel, in view of Section 21 of the Act, Ext.P5 petition was not maintainable and has been rightly dismissed. With respect to the challenge against Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No. 22984 of 2016 also, the challenge is belated and it is only to be dismissed. Since the award under Section 21 of the Act is final, it is contended that, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the writ petition also. 11. Heard. As we have already noticed above, the parties have in Ext.P3 worked out a settlement of their disputes after deciding to separate. In terms of the award, we are informed that a joint petition for divorce was filed before the Family Court and that a divorce also was granted. The only contentious issue is regarding the custody of the child. O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 9 According to the counsel for the respondent-wife, the present proceedings have been initiated only to harass the wife. It is contended that though in terms of the award Ext.P3, the child had been taken to the Family Court on a number of occasions, the husband had not turned up. It is therefore contended that the claim for custody of the child is lacking in sincerity. 12. We have gone through the petition filed by the husband evidenced herein by Ext.P5. We notice that, the bulk of the averments contained therein relate to the allegation regarding violation of the terms of Ext.P3 committed by the respondent-wife. It is true that, the husband has thereafter sought for permanent custody of the minor child contending that, he is the proper person to be entrusted with the custody of the child. It is also stated that he would be in a position to attend to the timely needs of the child and to provide a better quality of life to her. In Ext.P6 counter statement, the wife has refuted all the contentions of the husband by pointing out O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 10 specific instances of violations of the terms of Ext.P3 from his side. According to the wife, the parties had settled all their differences and had agreed on the manner in which the custody of the child was to be continued. Absolutely no change in circumstances has taken place warranting a variation thereof. 13. A perusal of the pleadings in the case does not convince us that, there has been any change of circumstances warranting a modification of the present arrangement regarding custody of the child that has been put in place as per Ext.P3 award, by agreement of parties. As rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court has in Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal ((1973) 1 SCC 840) held that all orders regarding custody of minor children should be considered to be temporary, in their very nature and that such orders were liable to be varied or modified where there are change of circumstances warranting O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 11 ## such modification. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment reads as under: “18. The appellant's argument based on estoppel and on the orders made by the court under the Indian Divorce Act with respect to the custody of the children did not appeal to us. All orders relating to the custody of the minor wards from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstances. With the changed conditions and circumstances, including the passage of time, the Court is entitled to vary such orders if such variation is considered to be in the interest of the welfare of the wards. It is unnecessary to refer to some of the decided cases relating to estoppel based on consent decrees, cited at the bar. Orders relating to custody of wards even when based on consent are liable to be varied by the Court, if the welfare of the wards demands variation.” 14. The relevant aspects that are to be taken note of, while considering the custody of a child has been laid down by the Apex Court in Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu ((2008) 9 SCC 413). Paragraph 52 of the said judgment reads as O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 12 ## under: “52. In our judgment, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this: in deciding a difficult and complex question as to the custody of a minor, a court of law should keep in mind the relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a human problem and is required to be solved with human touch. A court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, nay bound, to give due weight to a child's ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable considerations. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the court O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 13 as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.” 15. The above binding dicta leave no doubt in our minds that the question regarding custody of the minor child should be approached not on the basis of legal principles, but with a human touch. In the present case, the child is a girl child aged just six years. The proceedings in this case clearly show that she has been with the mother, all along. In Ext.P1 award, the parties initially agreed that the husband would pay Rs.1250/- as maintenance to the child with effect from 1.5.2012. At that time, admittedly the father was working abroad. It is clear from the fact that maintenance to the child was directed to be paid, that the child was with the mother. The situation continued without alteration, going by the terms of Ext.P3 award also, except for the fact that the maintenance amount was enhanced. There are allegations that the maintenance is not being paid regularly. We leave it at that. Suffice it to notice that the child has been living with the O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 14 mother throughout. Visitation rights have been given to the father. There are allegations that, on many occasions, though the child was taken to the Family Court, the father had not turned up. The father alleges that, he is being denied even the facility of visitation that has been provided to him by Ext.P3. If there is any violation of the terms of Ext.P3, it shall be open to the parties to execute the same, for enforcing the same. 16. The question that arises in the above circumstances is whether the Family Court was right in finding that Ext.P5 petition was not maintainable in view of Ext.P3 award. Section 21 of the Act reads as under: “21. Award of Lok Adalat.- (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub section (1) of Section 20, the court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870). (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 15 and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.” As per the above provision, every award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court. Every award is also made final and binding on all parties to the dispute and the remedy by way of an appeal is barred against the award. This is in view of the fact that, it is by the agreement of parties that an award of the Lok Adalat is passed. Though it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner herein that, Ext.P2 application filed by the wife did not contain a prayer regarding custody of the child, it was no doubt open to the parties to reach an agreement upon all the aspects of the disputes between them. A perusal of Ext.P3 shows that, they had in fact reached an agreement on the various aspects of their dispute, even regarding custody of the child. The award having been passed based on the agreement of parties, a finality has been given to it by law. Such finality cannot be upset on the ground that the O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 16 application had not contained a prayer regarding custody of the child. The remedy, as we have already noticed, in the event of violation of any of the terms of Ext.P3, is by way of execution proceedings for the enforcement thereof. If the visitation rights provided to the petitioner-husband are denied, it would certainly be open to him to enforce the terms of Ext.P3. Therefore, we find that the impugned orders Exts.P7, P8, P9 as well as Ext.P10 judgment that are under challenge, are perfectly in order. 17. In the present case, we do not find from the averments in the petition filed by the husband that, there has been any change of circumstances warranting a variation or modification of the arrangement regarding the custody of the minor child. It may be true that, the wife has obtained employment at Bangalore and has taken the child there. It is not open to the husband to object to the said course on the ground that his rights of visitation would be affected. His O.P.(F.C.)316/2016 & W.P.(C).22984/2016. 17 rights would remain unaffected even if the child is taken to Bangalore, since she could come to Kannur at any time. 18. In W.P.(C) No. 22984 of 2016, though a number of grounds have been raised against the award of the Lok Adalat evidenced in the said proceedings by Ext.P4, we find that the challenge now made is highly belated and that no sufficient explanation is available for the delay. We are also not satisfied that the grounds are sustainable. For the foregoing reasons, O.P.(F.C.) No. 316 of 2016 as well as W.P.(C) No. 22984 of 2016 are dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE MARY JOSEPH JUDGE sb