HARIPRASAD, J.
The petitioner is the respondent in Ext.P4 Guardian O.P., pending before the Family court, Ernakulam. She is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order passed by the Family court, issuing an interim injunction restraining the petitioner (respondent in the I.A.) from removing their child from the school where now he is studying and also from the jurisdiciton of the Family court, until further orders.
2. Short facts relevant for our purpose are as follows : The respondent herein married the petitioner on 18.8.2002. A boy child by name Advitheeya P. @ Appu was born in the wedlock on 11.7.2003. Thereafter, the marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent became strained. The petitioner approached the Family court, Ernakulam, with O.P.No.680/2013 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, claiming divorce. That O.P. was allowed as per Ext.P1 judgment. Thereafter, the disputes prevailing at that time between the parties had been settled. Ext.P2 is the compromise petition executed by the parties and filed before the Family court in G.O.P No.679/2013. Subsequently, the petitioner re-married. Her second husband is permanently working in Delhi. The petitioner wanted to take her child to Delhi and continue his education in Delhi. When she made attempts in this regard, the respondent raised objections and he filed Ext.P4 O.P. for permanent custody of the minor child. In that matter, Ext.P10 interim order happened to be passed.
3. This Court on 25.4.2014 recorded the submission made by the counsel that, the Assistant Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan, Regional Office, Gurgaon, has approved the admission of petitioner's son, namely Advitheeya P., to standard VI, as per serial no.21 of his proceedings bearing No.F.32331/2014/RO/GGN dated 17.4.2014. This fact was recorded and on that basis, this Court directed to keep the above seat vacant until further orders.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.
5. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order on the basis that the child will have a bright future when he is admitted in a school at Delhi. Further, as per the compromise, the respondent accepted the right of mother to claim permanent custody. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that at the time of compromise, none of the parites had visualised such a situation as the one now created by the petitioner and no condition was prescribed regarding removal of the child out of Kerala. Admittedly, the petitioner challenges an interim order. The matter is pending before the Family court. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that, the entire matter can be considered by the Family court, as the pleadings in the original petition have been completed. The ultimate issue to be resolved herein is the welfare of the child and for adjudicating that issue, we are of the view that evidence will have to be considered. Therefore, in our opinion, the matter can be effectively disposed of by the Family court, Ernakulam, after allowing the parties to adduce evidence touching upon the matters. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the meantime, the order passed, relating to keep a seat reserved for the child, should be continued. Of course, we do so. It is also submitted on both sides that the Kendriya Vidyala School in Delhi will be reopening only on 24.6.2014. So, in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this petition making following directions :
1. The parties shall appear before the Family court, Ernakulam, on 28.5.2014.
2. The parties shall get ready with the matter and co-operate to proceed with evidence.
3. The Family court shall dispose of the matter on merits on or before 15.6.2014.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/ Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, Judge //True copy// P.A. to Judge