Devan Ramachandran, J.
1. The controversy in this case originally began with a Writ Petition filed by the respondent - mother, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, against the petitioner herein qua their child.
2. The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of through Ext.P4 judgment of this Court, wherein, we recorded that the child was with the father; and, with the consent of the parties, we directed that he will be with the respondent – mother overnight on certain days.
3. Thereafter, on the imputation that the wife was refusing to return the child, IA No.1/2024 was filed in the said Writ Petition, which culminated in Ext.P5 order; subsequent to which, the respondent - mother filed RP No.1105/2024 seeking that Ext.P4 judgment be reviewed, which was also dismissed.
4. Therefore, as matters now stand, going by the orders we have issued, the child ought to be with the father, with the mother enjoined interim custody rights, as ordered in Ext.P4. However, the petitioner now concedes that he went abroad after Ext.P4, leaving the child in the custody of his mother; but alleges that the respondent – mother refused to return the child to his grandmother, after she obtained his interim custody in terms of Ext.P4 judgment.
5. It transpires that the petitioner, thereupon, filed Ext.P7 application before the learned Family Court seeking a modification of the arrangement we made in Ext.P4, invoking the liberty reserved to him to do so therein; but it has now culminated in Ext.P9, where he has been granted only the right to talk to the child through video conference.
6. The afore order is now assailed by the petitioner before this Court, through this Original Petition.
7. We have issued notice to the respondent through Special Messenger, but it has been returned with the endorsement “the respondent was out of station.” (sic)
8. As said above, going by our earlier orders, the child ought to have been with the father, with the mother exercising only interim custody rights over him. However, even when we considered IA No.1/2024 in the Writ Petition in question, as evident from Ext.P5, we were told that the mother has not returned the child to the petitioner – father. We had thus given liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court with a contempt of court case, which he did not do; and in the alternative, he moved the learned Family Court through Ext.P7.
9. We do not know how the child came to be with the mother except from the assertion of the petitioner; and more intriguing, is his assertion that he is now abroad. Even this was never told to us, and we proceeded in Ext.P4 judgment under the impression that he was away only temporarily at that time, with the child at least having his father with him; to thus give interim custody rights to the mother.
10. However, now it appears that the entire scenario, both factually and circumstantially, has changed.
11. Viewed from that perspective, when we see Ext.P9, the learned Family Court has found that the petitioner or his mother is unwilling to take the child in permanent custody, in spite of the earlier decree in OP(G&W)No.542/2023, binding the parties. Of course, we are told that the mother has filed an application to have this decree set aside, asserting it to have been issued ex parte; and that the same is pending.
12. In the meanwhile, the petitioner now says that he has to go abroad not later than 05.02.2026.
13. In the circumstances afore presented, we have little doubt that the learned Family Court cannot be seen to have acted in error; though the right of the petitioner to move it appropriately is always open - which we see he has done, by preferring Ext.P8 application, wherein, he has sought interim custody of the child for a short duration. His learned counsel says that this application has not been considered even now.
14. Resultantly, though we refuse to intervene with Ext.P9 order, we direct the learned Family Court to take up Ext.P8 application and issue orders thereon, after hearing both sides, as is appropriate, not later than 03.02.2026.
This Original Petition is thus allowed.
