K.Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, directing production of the child on 29.04.2014, produced as Ext.P6. Admittedly, the child was not produced on 29.04.2014 and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Family Court has now passed an order directing production of the child on 03.05.2014.
2. The learned counsel contends that the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram has no jurisdiction to consider the matter, especially since the child has been residing in the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta from 2009 onwards.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, in an earlier proceeding for divorce filed by the O.P.(FC) No.225 of 2014 2 respondent herein, the petitioner was directed to produce the child and on production of the three year old child, the respondent had forcibly taken the child from the custody of the petitioner, in the court premises and the petitioner was constrained to file a Habeas Corpus petition before this Court, which is evidenced by Ext.P1. It is only on the intervention of the Division Bench of this Court, that the custody of the child was restored to the petitioner.
4. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the case and decide upon the jurisdiction; especially when the petitioner has filed an application questioning the jurisdiction, evidenced by Ext.P2. It is without considering the same that the Family Court has passed Ext.P6 order, is the contention of the petitioner. In the circumstance of the direction by the Family Court to the petitioner to produce the child, it will also not be proper for this Court to interfere with the same.
In such circumstances, we direct that the child shall be produced before the Family Court as directed by this Court. However, no orders on custody shall be passed unless orders O.P.(FC) No.225 of 2014 3 are issued in Ext.P2. It is made clear that there shall not be even an order for interim custody of the child for the day when the child is produced. The Family Court necessarily would be entitled to interact with the child when the child is produced before the Court.
With the above observation, the original petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln