OP(C).No.1187 of 2015 (O) Geethanjali Pai v. Mohanachandran Nair & Pro Prasanthi Cashew Company is an OP(C) in the Kerala High Court arising from execution proceedings in OS No.360 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Kollam. The decree, dated 18 February 2009, directed the respondent to recover ₹29,70,000 from the petitioner to the extent she inherited from the original defendant. The original defendant died during the suit, and the petitioner was impleaded as the additional second defendant. An attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC remained in force, and the execution court proceeded to sale and rateable distribution in EPs, despite the attachment and pending suits. The petitioner challenges the sale of the property on the basis that a settlement deed dated 20 September 2002 transferred the property from the father to the daughter just after service of demands and before the suit, and thus argues the transfer was not inherited but constituted a transfer to defeat creditors. The respondent contends the settlement deed is a fraudulent transfer to defeat creditors and should be realizable under the decree. The High Court held that the settlement deed, executed in the run-up to the suit, constitutes a fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the execution court had jurisdiction under Section 47 CPC to determine such questions in execution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and Ext.P11 order upheld, leaving the decree intact."
Crl.M.C. No. 3004 of 2014 (G) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the sole accused E. Pavithran seeking to quash proceedings in S.C. No.363/2012, pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Thalassery, a Special Court for offences affecting the rights of children under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. The case arises from Crime No.4/2012 of Payangadi Police Station, alleging offences under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 294(b) (obscene act). The 2nd respondent, the defacto-complainant, and 3rd respondent are relatives; the matter has been settled through mediation, and connected cases (C.C. Nos. 246/2012 and 513/2012) have already been quashed by orders annexed to the petition. The petitioner contends that because of the family settlement there is no likelihood of conviction, and continuing the prosecution would cause irreparable injury; hence the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the settlement, submits that since the case involves child rights, quashing under 482 cannot be resorted to. The court recalls Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, noting that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in private disputes if the ends of justice demand and there is no abuse of process, particularly in family disputes or where private offences predominate. Having regard to the settlement, the ages of the parties, and the absence of chances of conviction, the court holds that quashing is appropriate, and allows the petition, quashing S.C.No.363/2012 and directing immediate communication of this order to the Sessions Court.
CRL.A Nos. 254, 325 & 343 of 2015 Conspiracy, political enmity and mistaken identity formed the core of this case. On 02.03.2014 at night, five to seven men attacked PW1, PW2 and the deceased at a sand heap near a construction site, causing the death of Navas and serious injuries to PW1 and PW2; the prosecution alleged the assailants were CPI(M) affiliates and that A5 identified PW48, while A6–A11 participated in the conspiracy. The State relied on eyewitnesses, weapon recoveries, a hospital FIS, and call-detail data to prove a conspiracy under IPC 120B read with 34 and 149, with charges including 302, 307, 326, 143, 147, 148, 201 and 212 and Arms Act 27. The trial court convicted A1–A8 and A10–A11; A9 was acquitted. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence: the FIS timing/attribution were suspect; several 161 statements were destroyed and not supplied; many witnesses were chance or planted; there was no proper TIP; call data were insufficient; identification at trial was unreliable. After analysis, the court held no proven conspiracy and overturned the conviction. The appeals were allowed and the accused acquitted; they were ordered to be released forthwith if in custody. This judgment underscores the primacy of fair trial rights and the necessity of reliable corroborative evidence before convicting in cases of conspiracy and political overtones.
OP(C).No. 3137 of 2016 (O) This High Court of Kerala petition challenges an order under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by a Principal Munsiff Ernakulam, which referred certain disputes arising from a lease to arbitration. The petitioner, P.R. Ranjini, is the plaintiff in OS No.138/2016, seeking an injunction restraining the respondent from forcibly evicting her from the plaint schedule building and from demanding rent beyond the amount fixed in a lease dated 15 October 2015, or to have the rent fixed by a competent authority. The respondent BSNL filed IA 3999/2016 under Section 8(2) challenging the maintainability of the civil suit in light of an arbitration clause, and the trial court allowed the reference to arbitration. The petitioner contends eviction is not arbitrable and the civil court must adjudicate it, relying on Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Others (AIR 2011 SC 2507). The respondent argues that disputes over rent and the amount payable can be decided by the arbitrator, and points to the lease clause that mandates arbitration for disputes. The High Court ultimately holds that eviction, being protected under a special tenancy regime, is non-arbitrable and cannot be decided by the arbitral tribunal, while disputes concerning rent and interpretation of the lease may be referred to arbitration; the order is set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with directions to restore the suit and proceed according to law.
This appeal arises from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal’s award in OP(MV) No.44/2008 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Sufalkumar Biswas, husband of Lipi Biswas and father of Monisha Biswas. The Tribunal awarded Rs 8,92,500 with interest and held contributory negligence on both the deceased and the second rider, apportioning liability equally. The appellants contend this finding is perverse and seek enhanced compensation, arguing that Ext.A5 (police charge sheet) constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence, which respondents failed to rebut (Pazhani Ammal principle). The High Court, while examining, found that the evidence did not justify the Tribunal’s equal attribution of negligence to the deceased; it vacated that finding and held the accident occurred solely due to the 2nd respondent’s negligence. On quantum, the court fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs 5,000, allowed 50% future prospects, and deducted 1/3 for personal living expenses. It recomputed loss of dependency as Rs 10,20,000 and granted additional heads: pain and suffering Rs 15,000; medical Rs 5,000; funeral Rs 17,000; loss of consortium Rs 70,000; loss of love and affection Rs 25,000. Total compensation: Rs 3,36,000 with 8% interest from petition date. The 1st appellant gets the consortium amount, the 2nd appellant the love and affection, with the balance 2:1 apportioned between them. 3rd respondent to deposit within three months; no costs.
RP.No.216 of 2021 in W.A.No.442 of 2018 This is a Review Petition filed by Sheela Mohan challenging the judgment pronounced in WA No.442/2018, which itself arose from W.P.(C) No.6124 of 2018 decided by the Kerala High Court on 12.03.2018. The Review Petition contends that there was an inordinate delay of 1056 days in filing the review petition against the 2018 WA judgment, and seeks condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Hon’ble Judges undertake a detailed consideration of the acceptable grounds for condonation, citing NB Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Reghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649, among others. The decision reproduces a comprehensive set of principles emphasizing a liberal, justice-oriented approach to condonation while stressing that substantial justice prevails over mere technicalities; that delay must be weighed against the explanation offered; and that gross negligence or lack of bona fides should preclude relief. Ultimately, the court concludes that the delay cannot be condoned given its inordinate length, and dismisses the delay petition, leading to dismissal of the Review Petition itself. This order reflects the Kerala High Court’s guarded stance on disturbing final judgments on grounds of delay alone.
This High Court of Kerala, in A.S. Nos. 9 and 498 of 1997, revisits a decree in a suit for settlement of accounts arising from production of the film Sahyante Makan. The plaintiff, G.S. Panicker, a film producer, and the defendant, K. Prabhakaran, advanced funds for production based on agreements Ext. B31 (25.03.1982) and Ext. B15 (03.07.1984). The original estimate was Rs. 1 lakh but costs swelled to over Rs. 3 lakhs. The plaintiff executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant allowing him to receive money from the Director of Public Instruction for supplying prints, with expenses to be accounted by the defendant. The trial court found the plaintiff entitled to Rs. 27,500 plus interest and costs, but the plaintiff and defendant challenged the quantum and the mode of settlement. On appeal, the court below held that the relationship was Principal and Agent and that the suit for settlement of accounts was maintainable. The High Court held that the question of the nature of the relationship between the parties had not been properly determined and that the judgments required reexamination. Relying on doctrines of partnership by implication (citing Ponnamma v. Kamaleswaran) and noting that extant agreements suggested a joint venture, the bench set aside the decree, allowed the appeals, and remitted the matter to the court below for disposal de novo with directions to determine the nature of the relationship and the maintainability of the suit.
WA No. 811 of 2020 (and connected cases) These writ appeals arise from the common judgment dated 25 February 2020 in WP(C) No. 10107 of 2019 and connected matters, concerning the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and the Employees' Pension Scheme. The petitions challenged notional limitations on pension calculation under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, arguing for pension computed without ceiling on the pensionable salary and allowing remittance of higher contributions to the pension fund. The matter before a Division Bench began with Sasikumar P. v. Union of India (ILR 2019 (1) Kerala 614) and the Supreme Court's decision in RC Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO (2018) 14 SCC 809, which guided pension-related interpretations. The EPFO contended that the pension is contributory and that permitting higher contributions would erode the corpus and affect thousands of pensioners. The present Full Bench reviewed Sasikumar P., noting it requires reconsideration regarding the 2014 amendment and the salary-based pension, but also acknowledged the practicality of protecting the corpus. Citing Pawan Hans Ltd. v. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana (2020) 13 SCC 506 and Sunil Kumar B. v. EPFO (AIR 2022 SC 5634), the court directed EPFO to reconsider entitlement to higher pension in line with the Supreme Court's directions, while extending time for those who could not exercise options. The appeals were disposed of with directions to follow the Sunil Kumar framework and related RC Gupta guidance.
This writ petition challenges the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account bearing No. 1597020000000303 by the 6th respondent bank, allegedly on requisitions received from the police. The petitioner, LearnBridge by NV Private Limited, contends that the freeze is illegal and arbitrary, as it extends beyond the amounts specified in the police order and obstructs normal banking transactions. The 6th respondent bank submits that the total disputed amount is Rs. 30,420 and that the debit freeze is warranted by police requisitions. The matter was heard with counsel for the petitioner, the Government Pleader, and the bank. The Court relies on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), which direct banks to confine freezes to the amounts in the police order and to obtain timely information from police on continuation. Relying on these precedents, the judge directs that the freezing order be confined to the amount mentioned in the police order and that police inform the bank whether continued freezing is required and for what period. The bank is directed to act on such information, and if no information is received within the specified time, the petitioner may approach the court again. The judgment also requires service of this decision on the concerned police officers and directs lifting of the debit freeze if timely reporting is not made. The petition is disposed with these directions, with liberty to pursue further contentions if necessary.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5295 OF 2025 Abdul Razik, a 26-year-old accused in Crime No.01/2024 of the Palakkad Excise Range Office, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The case arises from the seizure of 48.7 kilograms of ganja at Palakkad Junction Railway Station on 13 January 2024, with the petitioner arrested on the same date and facing offences under Sections 22(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution argues the contraband quantity is “commercial” and that bail would undermine the NDPS Act’s regime, particularly where the accused faces a serious charge. The petitioner’s counsel relies on recent Supreme Court guidance that prolonged incarceration and delays caused by the prosecution can render Section 37 NDPS inapplicable, and Article 21 of the Constitution protects personal liberty in such circumstances. The Public Prosecutor counters with the gravity of the offense and the quantity involved. The Court considers the cited authorities—Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal; Hasanujjaman v. State of West Bengal; Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala—and notes prosecutorial delay, non-disclosure of witnesses, and a pending Section 311 Cr.P.C petition. Ultimately, the Court disposes of the bail application with directions for a fresh bail petition within one month, to be decided in light of the cited principles within a further short period.
RP No. 37 of 2024 in Mat.Appeal No. 302 of 2019 This is a review petition by Limiya Thomas, wife of the petitioner in Mat.Appeal No.302/2019, challenging the 16 October 2023 judgment that directed the appellants‑husband and in‑laws to return gold and diamond ornaments listed in the 'C' Schedule, or pay their market value of ₹6,89,529, with interest and costs. The review petition argues gross injustice, contending that if the ornaments are not returned, the petitioner would be deprived; she seeks either the actual ornaments or their market value as on the date of payment. Reliance is placed on judgments such as William David @ Bijo v. Linu Mary George and other authorities to support broad remedial relief. The counter petitioners submit that the relief claimed in the original petition has already been granted and that there is no error on the face of the record warranting review because the appellate court has already confirmed the decree dated 29 September 2018 and cross-objections were disposed of. The court recalls that Order XLI Rule 33 CPC empowers the appellate court to pass further orders to do complete justice, but only where such relief flows from or is inseparably connected with the decreed issues; it emphasizes that the relief sought here cannot be read into pleadings. The court concludes that the petition does not justify invoking Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, and the petition is dismissed; interlocutory applications shall be closed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5267 OF 2025 Gireesan, the petitioner-accused in Crime No.55/2025 of the Nedumangad Excise Range, seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, challenging his detention in connection with offences under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The case facts allege possession of 13.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Rs.1000 recovered from him. He has been in custody since 01.04.2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but informed that the Investigating Officer’s report shows no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that he is prepared to comply with any conditions and that bail remains the basic rule, jail the exception, citing established jurisprudence. The High Court recalls the long-standing principle that fair trial requires bail rather than incarceration where appropriate. It relies on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) SCALE 870, and cites Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260) as supportive authority. The court finds no compelling material to refuse bail and determines that strict conditions can safeguard the investigation, including a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, appearance before the IO, travel restrictions and no further offences. The order clarifies its scope as bail proceedings and emphasizes that the contraband liquor is market-available, warranting careful monitoring through conditions.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 874 of 2006) by accused 3 and 4 challenging a Thalassery Sessions Court verdict in SC No. 389 of 2001. The trial court held that five accused trespassed into PW1’s house, broke open the door, and inflicted serious injuries with choppers and an axe, with a common object to cause PW1’s death; all five were held liable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Nos. 1 and 5 died, and Accused No. 2 was absconding; hence only the two appellants stood trial. The High Court examined whether the evidence of PW1 (the injured) and PW2 (his niece), supported by medical and recovery evidence, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering issues of investigation propriety, witness reliability (including relatives), and possible false implication. It relied on Supreme Court and Kerala decisions to stress that conviction cannot be based on moral conviction or mere suspicion and that independent corroboration is important when identification is lacking. It also addressed admissibility and proof of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court ultimately upheld the conviction of the 1st appellant, acquitted the 2nd appellant, and directed the 3rd accused to surrender to undergo sentence within a month.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property, originally belonging to Sankara Narayanan Bhattathiripad. The plaintiffs (respondents) are the children of Smt. Unnimayamma, who is said to have acquired tenancy rights over the property; they seek possession and injunction against the defendants who are various tenants and successors in interest asserting tenancy rights. The appellants (defendants 5, 6 and 11) contended that tenancy rights arose from Sankara Narayanan Bhattathiripad, or that the 3rd defendant obtained tenancy rights from Smt. Unnimayamma orally, and sought remand to decide the tenancy question against the plaintiffs. The Munsiff Court vide its 2006 decree held tenancy in favour of Unnimayamma and against the defendants, directing eviction and granting permanent injunction. The Sub Court Tirur, in 2020, confirmed the trial court’s findings. The High Court examined questions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, including references to Land Tribunal findings under Section 125 and the appellate review under Section 125(6). It held that the Land Tribunal had rightly negatived the tenancy claims of the defendants and that Ext. A1 showed tenancy in favour of Unnimayamma, thereby supporting the plaintiffs’ title. Referencing Poddar Plantations Ltd., the court clarified that the appellate court may consider the legality of Land Tribunal findings on appeal. The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed; interlocutory orders were vacated and execution directed to proceed promptly.
Petitioners, numbering 49 individuals, challenge the claim for a higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme as amended in 2014. The petition contends entitlement to enhanced pension under the amended scheme, relying on its validity and implementation. The Supreme Court has upheld the amended scheme in Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar.B. (2022(7) KHC 12), and the Kerala High Court notes this finding. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents points out that, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, petitioners may file a fresh application under the amended scheme for enhanced pension, which could be considered in accordance with the scheme and the directions in the judgment. The High Court agrees with this approach and disposes of the petition, directing that if the petitioners submit appropriate applications seeking enhanced pension under the amended scheme, the competent authority of the EPFO shall consider them without delay. The decision thus aligns the petitioners’ claim with the amended framework and the Supreme Court’s rulings, while preserving the petitioners’ opportunity to pursue enhanced pension within the revised scheme. Exhibits and prior orders relate to the development of pension matters and the GSR 609(E) (2014). The matter was heard on 04.10.2023 and the judgment was delivered on the same day.
BAIL APPL. NO. 508 OF 2024 This is a bail application under section 439 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, arising from Crime No. 57/2024 of Kasaragod Police Station. Accused 1 and 2 (Vijith Raj B and Sanath Kumar K) are charged with offences under IPC sections 323, 324 and 307 r/w 34. They were arrested on 13.01.2024. The prosecution claims serious injuries were inflicted by the accused using an iron rod and a soda bottle, lodging an attempt to commit murder. The defence contends mis-implication, stating the injured attacked them with the soda bottle and that a counter case exists against the injured. It is argued custody since 13.01.2024 is long, and the investigation is near completion with recovery made. The State points to medical records showing grievous injuries (left external auditory canal fracture, right femoral head fracture, subarachnoid hemorrhage, brain contusions, scalp hematoma) and establishes the seriousness of the offence; it also notes the petitioner’s history of crime, with the first petitioner having nine prior cases. The petitioners rely on settled bail principles from Supreme Court decisions, advocating cancellation of bail due to the alleged lack of prima facie case, gravity of offence, risk of witness tampering, and need for reasoned orders. The High Court, after considering the materials and authorities, holds that the accusations are grave and dismisses the bail applications. The order is passed by Justice C.S. Dias.
The petitioners approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, challenging the Kerala Public Service Commission's extension of the rank-list validity for the post of Medical Officer (Siddha) in the Indian System of Medicine. The original rank list, valid until 13 February 2021, was extended to 4 August 2021, and eight vacancies were reported on 1 March 2021 after those posts were created by government notification on 25 February 2021. The petitioners contended that the PSC could not advise for vacancies created after the expiry of the original rank-list period, arguing that extension should apply only to vacancies that existed during the initial validity. The Tribunal repelled the challenge, and the matter reached the High Court. The court examined Rule 13 and its 5th proviso, which contemplates keeping ranked lists alive during certain extraordinary circumstances, including general bans on reporting vacancies, and allowing advice for vacancies reported during the extended period. It held that the PSC's action was not arbitrary, that the Government's role in reporting vacancies is unfettered subject to non-arbitrary conduct, and that petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge such extensions. Citing R.K. Jain v. Union of India, State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok, and B. Srinivasa Reddy, the High Court dismissed the original petition. The final disposition is that OA (EKM) No. 485/2021 stands dismissed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 798 OF 2024 This is a Kerala High Court bail application under Section 438 CrPC by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 84/2024 of Parippally Police Station, Kollam, seeking pre-arrest bail. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b) and 353 read with Section 34 IPC. The incident, dated 21 January 2024, occurred at Pampuram Vishnu Temple where the defendants allegedly abused the defacto complainant in vulgar language, forcibly pushed him to the ground, and damaged his name plate after grabbing his uniform. The prosecution asserts the events occurred during a confrontation between groups and that the Section 353 IPC accusation is warranted; it also contends that custodial interrogation and recovery are necessary and that granting anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation. The petitioners claim false involvement, deny participation, and rely on Annexure A2 showing injuries to themselves; they contend that Section 353 was inappropriately invoked to deny bail. The Court invokes established principles from Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) and the Sibbia framework, emphasizing that anticipatory bail decisions must be fact-specific and not rigid, and that discretion under Section 438 CrPC must be exercised with care and prudence. Ultimately, the Court finds no exceptional grounds for pre-arrest bail and dismisses the application, but permits surrender within 10 days with a subsequent merits-based bail consideration if pursued.
BAIL APPL. NO. 417 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by the accused, Daniel KOONAN, in Crime No.1608/2023 of the Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur, initially charged under Sections 341 and 324 IPC, with Section 326 IPC later added by the Investigating Officer. The prosecution contends that on 27.10.2023, around 12:10 p.m., following a dispute over the use of a motor cycle, the accused assaulted and stabbed the defacto complainant in the abdomen, resulting in serious injuries and hospitalization from 27.12.2023 to 01.01.2024, including surgery. The applicant claims innocence, asserts he is a law-abiding citizen, is willing to cooperate, and argues custodial interrogation is unnecessary, offering to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor counters that the offences are grave, the injuries are serious, and interrogation in custody is necessary; the accused is alleged to have criminal antecedents including offenses under Section 376 IPC and the POCSO Act, and there is a risk of tampering with witnesses and hindering investigation. The court relies on Supreme Court guidance in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia emphasizing flexible, fact-specific discretion rather than rigid norms, and concludes that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Sec. 438. The application is dismissed, with directions for surrender within 10 days and for expeditious consideration of any future bail application on merits.
This is a High Court of Kerala review petition by Prince V. Elias challenging an order in O.P.(FC) No.175 of 2023 concerning the custody of three children—William Price, Winston Price, and Wilfred Price. The Family Court, Thiruvalla, had allowed interim custody of the two younger children under I.A.4 of 2023. The High Court, in OP (FC) No.175 of 2023, as modified by its judgment dated 13.04.2023, directed that if the respondent mother is available at her native place, custody of the children would be with her for ten days, without affecting their studies; the arrangement also required the petitioner to produce the children at the maternal grandparents’ home once in three months for two days so that the maternal grandparents could interact with them. The petitioner contends that he could not produce the children in July 2023 due to his father’s death and the ensuing flood, and that in August 2023 he took the children to Mumbai and placed them with their grandparents. The respondent sought to cancel/modify I.A.4 of 2023; Subsequent events revealed allegations that the petitioner’s brother sexually harassed a child, which the police later found to be a false story; the Family Court’s order remains in effect, and the petitioner seeks to modify the custody arrangement. The court notes the seriousness of the allegations and that the respondent is abroad; it holds that such questions must be considered by the Family Court. The petition is disposed of with direction to approach the Family Court for modification.
