Dr. Ali Abdul Latheef v Union of India & Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(CRL.) NO. 699 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **DR. ALI ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O ABDUL LATHEEF, RESIDING AT PEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, EDAKAZHIYOOR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PINCODE: 680515.** ## **BY ADV SMT.D.LEEMA ROSY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY (PSP AND CPO), PSP DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.8, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI, PINCODE: 110001.** - **2 THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, NEAR IDBI CORPORATE BRANCH, SHIHAB THANGAL ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PINCODE: 682036.** - **3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PINCODE: 682031.** - **4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR CITY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PINCODE: 682031.** - **5 AYSHA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O MUHAMMAD C.P., CHALAPURATHU, EDAKKIZHIYOOR, CHAVAKAD POST OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PINCODE: 682515.** - **6 MUHAMMAD C.P., AGED 60 YEARS, CHALAPURATHU, EDAKKIZHIYOOR, CHAVAKAD POST OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PINCODE: 682515.** - **7 HAFSA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O MUHAMMAD C.P., CHALAPURATHU, EDAKKIZHIYOOR, CHAVAKAD POST OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PINCODE: 682515.** **8 ALI C.M., AGED AROUND 40 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMAD C.P., CHALAPURATHU, EDAKKIZHIYOOR, CHAVAKAD POST OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PINCODE: 682515.** - **ADDL.9 FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER (FRRO) OFFICE OF THE FRRO, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION (MHA), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** - **ADDL. 10 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/CFB EAST BLOCK-8, LEVEL-4, SECTOR-1, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-66** *** ADDL. R9 & R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 IN WP (CRL.) 699/22(S).** **ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SENIOR) ALONG WITH ADV. SRI.BABY MATHEW FOR R5 & R6 SRI. E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R3 & R4 SRI.S.MANU, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA FOR R1, R2, R9 & R10.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** - **02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ALEXANDER THOMAS & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ. ===================================== W.P.(Crl).No. 699 of 2022 ===================================== Dated this the 2[nd] day of November, 2022 ## J U D G M E N T ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking for _Habeas Corpus_ are as follows: “ - _i. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the Respondent No.1 to immediately trace and produce the Detenue namely Aaliyah Ali, aged 6 years, female child before this Hon'ble Court._ - _ii. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the Respondent No.3 and 4 to immediately conduct investigation and trace out the whereabouts of the Detenue and produce the Detenue namely Aaliyah Ali, aged 6 years, female child before this Hon'ble Court._ - _iii. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus to Respondent No.1 and 2 to transport the Detenue to India within a time frame._ - _iv. Pass such other Order or further Orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”_ 2. Heard Smt.D.Leema Rosy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (husband), Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri.Baby Mathew, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.5 (wife) & contesting respondent No.6 W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 - : 2 :- (wife's father), Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Prosecutor appearing for official respondents 3 & 4 and Sri.S.Manu, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for R-1, R-2, R-9 & R-10. Other parties have not entered appearance. 3. The following aspects would be pertinent going by the pleadings and materials on record. i. The petitioner herein is the husband of R-5 and the alleged detenue 'Aaliyah Ali', aged 6 years, is the girl child born in the wedlock of the petitioner with R-5. The petitioner is a doctor, who is a qualified Post Graduate in Pathology and R-5 is a qualified Dental Surgeon, who is specialized in Research Ethics, Bio Ethics, etc. There are serious matrimonial disputes between the parties. Alleging that the custody of the child is being consistently denied, the petitioner herein has approached the Family Court, Thrissur, by filing Ext.P-1 Guardianship Original Petition G.O.P. No. 1677/2021 on 3.9.2021, seeking for custody and other related pleas. ii. At the _ad interim_ stage, the Family Court has passed W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 - : 3 :- Ext.P-2 _ad interim ex parte_ temporary injunction order dated 6.9.2021 in I.A.No.3/2021 in G.O.P. No. 1677/2021, directing that, until the consideration of the I.A., R-5 herein shall not take the child outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Thrissur. Later, it appears that R-5 herein (wife) has filed Ext.P-9 Transfer Petition (Civil), Tr.P.(C) No.472/2021, before this Court on 10.9.2021, seeking for transfer of Ext.P-1 Guardianship Original Petition from the Family Court, Thrissur to the Family Court, Kasaragod. iii.One of the specific pleas taken up by R-5 is that, even before the filing of Ext.P-1 G.O.P. on 3.9.2021, R-5 and the child were based in Mangalore from 2016 onwards and that therefore, the Family Court, Thrissur, never had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Further that, since she was then in Mangalore, she was prepared to face the litigative proceedings in the Family Court, Kasaragod, which is nearby to Mangalore. iv. This Court, as per Ext.P-10 interim order dated 15.9.2021, in Tr.P.(C) No.472/2021 has granted interim stay of further W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 - : 4 :- proceedings in G.O.P. No. 1677/2021 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur, for a period of one month. It is common ground that the said interim stay of further proceedings of the Guardianship Original Petition has been extended from time to time. v. R-5 herein has filed Ext.P-11 counter affidavit in Ext.P-10 Tr.P.(C) No.472/2021 before this Court. Further, it appears that, during the pendency of the abovesaid Transfer Petition (Civil), R-5 secured employment in Qatar and had taken the child along with her to Qatar in April, 2022. Alleging that R-5 herein has earlier taken away the child from Thrissur to Mangalore and that the same amounts to violation of Ext.P-2 _ad interim_ injunction order, the petitioner herein has filed Ext.P-12 I.A.No.6/2021 in G.O.P.No. 1677/2021 on 1.12.2021 before the Family Court, Thrissur, praying that strict action should be taken against R-5 herein, for violating the said _ad interim_ injunction order. W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 - : 5 :- vi. Later, the learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing both sides, has rendered Ext.P-21 final order dated 22.7.2022, dismissing Tr.P.(C) No.472/2021, filed by R-5 herein, wherein it has been _inter alia_ held, in para 7 thereof, that on a comprehensive consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, particularly the fact that the petitioner therein (R-5 herein) has fled the country with the child, in violation of Annexure 4 therein (which appears to be Ext.P-2 _ad interim_ order dated 6.9.2021 of the Family Court), the Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary powers under Sec.24 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was accordingly ordered that the Transfer Petition has been dismissed, as per Ext.P-21. vii. Subsequently, the petitioner herein has filed Ext.P-22 I. A. No. 10/2021 in G.O.P. No. 1677/2021 on 12.8.2022 before the Family Court, Thrissur, praying that strict action should be taken against R-5 herein, for having again violated Ext.P-2 W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 **==> picture [30 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _ad interim_ injunction order, in having taken the child to Qatar in April, 2022, without the permission of the Court. 4. One of the specific pleas, now taken up by R-5 herein, is that, since the petitioner herein (husband) was not maintaining her and the child all throughout and since she was offered an employment in a Gulf Country (Qatar), she had no other alternative, but to take up the offer of employment and since there was no one to take care of the child, she was constrained to take the girl child, who was hardly aged 6 years, to Qatar, where she is residing. Further that, when she had taken the child in April, 2022, Ext.P-10 interim stay order dated 15.9.2021, granted by this Court in the Transfer Petition, was pending. 5. To this, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that, what has been stayed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, as per Ext.P-10 order dated 15.9.2021, is not the entire proceedings before the Family Court including Ext.P-2 _ad interim ex parte_ temporary injunction order dated 6.9.2021, but only the further proceedings in the Family Court, and that therefore, Ext.P-2 W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 **==> picture [30 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _ad interim_ injunction order was never stayed by this Court. Hence, it is urged that the action on the part of R-5 herein, in having taken away the child to Qatar in April, 2022, would again be yet another violation of Ext.P-2 _ad interim_ injunction order, etc. 6. Further, it also appears that, subsequently, R-5 herein has filed Review Petition, R.P. No.922/2022, seeking for review of Ext.P-21 final order dated 22.7.2022, rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Tr.P.(C) No.472/2021. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has passed order dated 12.10.2022, allowing the said Review Petition, by directing the Family Court, Thrissur, to consider and dispose of the abovesaid Guardianship Original Petition G.O.P. No. 1677/2021, untrammelled by any observations made in the order dated 22.7.2022 in Tr.P.(C) No.472/2021 and that the said observations were made by this Court only for the limited purpose of deciding the Transfer Petition and nothing more or nothing less. 7. Hence, it is urged by the counsel for R-5, that the adverse observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in para 7 W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 - : 8 :- of Ext.P-21 final order, has been interfered by this Court and the same has been clarified as above, as per the order allowing the Review Petition. 8. The main plea that is taken up by the counsel for the petitioner is that, R-5 has taken away the child to Qatar without the permission of either this Court in the then pending Transfer Petition or the Family Court concerned and that therefore, the custody of the child, retained by R-5, is grossly illegal and that, it is a fit case for this Court to interfere in _Habeas Corpus_ proceedings. 9. The abovesaid plea has been strongly opposed by the learned senior counsel appearing for R-5 & R-6. 10. After hearing both sides, we suggested to both sides that, it appears that the predominant cause of action in this matter may be in relation to the alleged violation of Ext.P-2 _ad interim_ injunction order and that therefore, the rights and interests of both sides will be subserved, if this Court directs the Family Court concerned to immediately consider and dispose of all the pending IAs. In relation to the matter of the alleged violation of the _ad interim_ order W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 - : 9 :- and other related aspects. We are told that, on a decision of the Family Court on the violation petition, the same is amenable for statutory appeal directly before this Court under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code. We also suggested that a specific time frame can be laid down by this Court, to enable the Family Court to decide on the pending IAs, after hearing both sides. 11. The learned advocates, appearing on both sides, have fairly accepted the abovesaid course of action, suggested by this Court. 12. On a previous occasion, Smt.D.Leema Rosy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (husband), had strongly urged that this Court may facilitate interim visitation rights to the petitioner with the child, as R-5 has consistently denied even visitation rights to the petitioner, who is the father of the child. The counsel appearing for R-5 had agreed to the suggestion of the Court that the petitioner can interact with the child through video calls on all Fridays and Saturdays from 6 P.M. to 6.30 P.M. 13. We had also then directed the Registry to get a report from the Family Court, Thrissur, which is dealing with G.O.P. No. 1677/2021, as to the present stage of the three IAs, now pending W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 - : 10 :- in the case. It may be pertinent to refer to paras 2 to 4 of the order dated 19.10.2022 rendered by this Court in the instant WP(Crl.), which read as follows: _“2. The Family Court, Thrissur, which is dealing with the Guardianship O.P.No.1677 of 2021, will immediately file a report to the Registry of this Court, as to the present stage of Ext.P12 I.A.No.6 of 2021 filed in GOP No.1677 of 2021 on 01.12.2021, for taking action on the alleged violation of the ad interim ex parte injunction order, granted on 06.09.2021 as well as on Ext.P22 I.A.No.10 of 2022, filed in GOP No.1677 of 2021 and Ext.R5(l) I.A.No.2 of 2021 filed in GOP No.1677 of 2021 and as to whether those I.As are pending or disposed of and if disposed of, its outcome and if not, as to the minimum reasonable time required for the Family Court, Thrissur, to pass orders on the above said three I.As., after hearing both sides._ _3. The above said report of the Family Court, Thrissur, shall be furnished to the Registry within one week by speed post, e-mail attachment and fax._ _4. Further, form the submissions of both sides, it appears that the child has been taken by R5 (mother) to Qatar, where the mother is working, in April, 2022 and further that the counsel for the petitioner (husband) submits that the petitioner has not even been permitted to have visitorial rights to the child even now. Accordingly, it is ordered that R5 (wife) will permit the petitioner to interact with the child Aaliyah Ali, aged 6 years (daughter of the petitioner and R5), who is now in Qatar, by video calls, either through WhatsApp/Botim or any other feasible application, on all Fridays and Saturdays between 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. In case WhatsApp video call is not feasible in Qatar, then both sides will ensure that an appropriate application, like Botim or Zoom or Google Meet, may be utilised to ensure that the petitioner is given opportunity to interact with the child through video calls, as above, without any fail. Any noncompliance with the direction by R5 will be viewed very seriously.”_ 14. Now, the Family Court, Thrissur, has given a report dated 22.10.2022, addressed to the Registry of this Court, wherein it has been _inter alia_ stated that, I.A. No.6/2021 and I.A. No. 10/2022 in G.O.P. No. 1677/2021 have not been disposed so far and that the W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 **==> picture [36 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** case is posted to 16.11.2022 for hearing and that the respondent therein (R-5 herein) has filed preliminary objection in the Original Petition, contending that the Family Court, Thrissur, has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate such case and that the question of jurisdiction will have to be decided before hearing the afore mentioned applications and that the case can be advanced to a nearby date and the above applications can be disposed of before 20[th] November, 2022, etc. 15. The abovesaid report of the Family Court only mentions about Ext.P-12 I.A.No.6/2021 as well as Ext.P-22 I.A.No.10/2022 and the same does not speak about Ext.R-5(l) I.A. No. 2/2021, filed by the petitioner herein in the above G.O.P. 16. Smt.D.Leema Rosy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that her party has filed Ext.R-5(l) I.A.No. 2/2021 in the above G.O.P. on 3.9.2021 and that, this Court may direct the Family Court to dispose of all the above three IAs in question. 17. The counsel for R-5 submits that, as a preliminary issue, the objection raised by R-5, regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, will have to be decided, etc. W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 **==> picture [36 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 18. Now, both sides have arrived at a consensus, as suggested by this Court. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Family Court, Thrissur, will immediately take up the objection raised by R-5 herein, regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the said Family Court, and may, thereafter, also take up for consideration the three pending IAs, namely, Ext.P-12 I.A.No.6/2021, Ext.P-22 I.A.No.10/2022 and Ext.R-5(l) I.A. No.2/2021 (all filed in the above G.O.P. No. 1677/2021) and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides, shall pass orders on all those matters, including the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction and the three pending IAs, without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, in case any of the parties concerned have any grievances, it is for them to work out their remedies, in the manner known to law. 19. Further, it is also placed on record, that the counsel for R-5 has submitted, on the basis of instructions, that R-5 would undertake that the petitioner can interact with the child, who is in Qatar, through video calls, on all Fridays and Saturdays, from 6 P.M. to 6.30 P.M. and that she would ensure the abovesaid process will be W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 **==> picture [36 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** facilitated, without any fail. 20. Further, we also place on record the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for R-5 that, so far, the petitioner has been permitted to interact with the child, through video calls, on the abovesaid 2 days in question, as ordered by this Court on 19.10.2022 in this case. 21. The counsel for R-5 has also submitted, on the basis of instructions, that R-5 would also undertake that, whenever she and the child come to Kerala, the petitioner can have weekend custody of the child, provided the petitioner undertakes that he would return back the custody to her immediately after 1 or 2 days. The counsel for R-5 has also submitted that adducing of evidence will be necessary for consideration of the violation petition and that, since R-5 is now in Qatar and she finds it very difficult to immediately come back to Kerala, this Court may direct the Family Court to permit R-5 to give evidence through video conferencing mode. 22. That is an aspect which the counsel for R-5 herein can certainly raise before the Family Court and it is for the said Family Court to consider the plea. However, we would suggest that the W.P.(Crl). No. 699 of 2022 **==> picture [36 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Family Court may interact with the petitioner as well as R-5 and the child through video conferencing, if the Family Court deems it necessary and fit. 23. We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the controversy in any manner and all the contentions, available to both sides, are left open to be raised and decided in appropriate proceedings, in the manner known to law. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Criminal) will stand disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE MMG ## **APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.).NO.699/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED BY**| |---|---| ||**THE PETITIONER IN G.O.P. 1667/2021 FILED BEFORE**| ||**THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR ON**| ||**03/09/2021.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER**| ||**PASSED BY THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT IN I.A. NO.**| ||**3/2021, DATED 06/09/2021.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING RESIDENT**| ||**STATUS WITH VISA NUMBER 362022075443 OF THE**| ||**DETENUE HAVING A PASSPORT NUMBER V1011791**| ||**PROCURED FROM WEBSITE OF MINISTRY INTERIOR,**| ||**QATAR.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE VISA**| ||**NOT FOUND FOR THE 5TH RESPONDENT WHO HAS A**| ||**PASSPORT NUMBER P4079744.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION (C) NO.**| ||**12348/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT**| ||**OF KERALA.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTIONS OF DR. ANIL,**| ||**CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRIST OF KAKUNJE PSYCHIATRY &**| ||**COUNSELLING CENTRE, DATED 25/06/2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE BILL FOR REGISTRATION &**| ||**CONSULTATION OF CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF BEHAVIOUR**| ||**SCIENCE, KADAVANTHRA, DATED 21/08/2013.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF BILL FOR CONSULTATION OF CENTRAL**| ||**INSTITUTE OF BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE, KADAVANTHRA**| ||**DATED 09/05/2013.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO.**| ||**472/2021 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM STAY ORDER IN I.A. NO.**| ||**1/2021 IN TR. P (C) NO. 472/2021.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY**| ||**THE PETITIONER IN TR. P.(C) NO. 472/2021.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE VIOLATION PETITION BEARING**| ||**I.A. NO. 6/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE**| ||**THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS**| ||**BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT. DT.**| ||**3/1/22.**| **EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 1/2021 IN TR.P.(C). 472/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO ISSUE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF THE DETENUE, DATED 02/03/2022. EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, SIR SYED ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, PAVARATTY, DATED 08/04/2022. EXHIBIT P17 PENDRIVE CONTAINING THE CONVERSATION VIDEO OF THE DETENUE AND THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT MADE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. DTD. 18/7/22 EXHIBIT P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKAD. EXHIBIT P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR CITY, DATED 18/07/ 2022. EXHIBIT P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN TRANSFER PETITION NO. 472/2021, DATED 22/07/2022. EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. 10/2022 FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR IN G.O(P) 1677/2021** - **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT IN ENGLISH RECITATION DATED 21/01/2020 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF AALIYAH ALI BY KANCHUR PRE SCHOOL** **EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE E MAIL COMPLAINT DATED 18/8/2020 FILED BEFORE THE MANGLORE POLICE EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION LETTER ISSUED BY NIASHA YOUTH HOSTEL EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22/10/2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN TRPC NO.472/2021 EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE PHOTO EVIDENCING THE PRESENCE OF THE PETITIONER AT CONVOCATION PROGRAM EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE PHOTO EVIDENCING THE PRESENCE OF THE PETITIONER AT CONVOCATION PROGRAM** **EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF AALIYAH ALI Y SIR SYED ENGLISH SCHOOL EXHIBIT R5(H) TRUE COPY OF THE WORK-YEARLY RESIDENT VISA DATED 06/03/2022 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF QATAR EXHIBIT R5(I) TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 20/08/2022 ISSUED BY THE PEAR SCHOOL EXHIBIT R5(J) ACKNOWLEDGMENT-FAMILY ACCOMMODATION DATED 27/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE HR DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, QATAR EXHIBIT R5(K) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/06/2022 ISSUED BY WOMEN POLICE STATION PANDESHWAR EXHIBIT R5(L) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3/09/2021 IN IA NO.2/2021 IN GOP NO. 1667/2021 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, TRISSUR. EXHIBIT R5(M) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RENEWED PASSPORT OF THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R5(N) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2022 IN RP NO. 922/2022.**