2025:KER:28840 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP (FC) NO. 195 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 IN I.A.19/2025 IN OP NO.1190 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN IA NO.19/2025 IN OP NO.1190/2023: NUSAIBA A M, AGED 26 YEARS, AREMTHURUTHY HOUSE, METHALA KARA, METHALA.P.O., ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683545 BY ADVS. N.ANILKUMAR K.R.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR (PERUMBAVOOR) SINU.G.NATH DEEPA DEVI C. NITHYASREE B. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: MUHAMMED FAIZAL.K.M., AGED 32 YEARS KATTAMKUZHY HOUSE, METHALA KARA, METHALA.P.O, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683545 THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28840 OP(FC) 195/25 2 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of the learned Family Court, Muvattupuzha, however, conceding that the directions therein have now become infructuous since the date fixed for the exchange of the child has elapsed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that his client has filed this Original Petition because she is apprehensive that she will be proceeded against for violation of the order of the learned Family Court; and thus prayed that it be set aside. 3. We are afraid that we cannot act on apprehensions and mere conjectures, particularly when the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court on 01.04.2025, though the order in question directed the child to be given to the respondent on the ‘Eid’ day, namely 31.03.2025. That apart, going by the endorsements on the certified copy, the impugned order was ready on 27.03.2025 and 2025:KER:28840 OP(FC) 195/25 3 we fail to understand why the petitioner did not approach this Court before the date fixed in it for exchange of the child. The explanation for this by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his client approached him only a day earlier. Indubitably, this Original Petition is an afterthought by the petitioner. In the afore circumstances, this Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE RR 2025:KER:28840 OP(FC) 195/25 4 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 195/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 IN I.A 19/2025 IN 0.P NO.1190/2023 FAMILY COURT MUVATTUPUZHA Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER JN I.A 19/2025 JN O.P NO.1190/2023 OF FAMILY COURT MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 24.03.2025 AS RESPONDENT I Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.1146/2023 DATED 03.02.2025 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT O.P NO.1190/2023 FAMILY COURT MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 26.03.2025 FILED BY RESPONDENTS