- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for both the parties.
(2.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely, the germane facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of these civil revision petitions would run thus: 2.The father of the child filed G.W.O.P.No.120 of 2012 seeking the following reliefs: "Appointing the petitioner namely father as guardian of the minor child S.Sheik Mohammed having the custody of it till the attaintment of majority". While so, he also filed I.A.No.129 of 2012 seeking the following relief. "To pass interim orders directing the respondent to produce the child before the Court twice in a week in the court i.e on Monday and Friday on the court working dates or in the next date, in case holiday in order to see and have my child for the duration/time to be fixed by the Court till the disposal of the G.W.O.P." The matter was contested, whereupon the lower Court passed the order. The operative portion of it would run thus: "In the result, this petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to bring the child in presence of the Senior Administrative Officer, District Legal Services Authority, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil on every Monday and Friday at 1.30 p.m to 05.00 p.m. The petitioner only is permitted to be seen with the child in the above said time within the premises of District Legal Services Authority, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil and the petitioner is not permitted to take the child outside the premises of the Legal Services Authority. Both parties do bear their own cost." Subsequently, the mother filed I.A.No.204 of 2012 seeking the modification of the earlier order. After hearing both sides, the Court passed the order, modifying the earlier order as under: "The earlier order passed in I.A.No.129 of 2012 in G.W.O.P.No.120/2012 dated 15.09.2012 is modified to the effect that the respondent is directed to bring the child in the presence of the Legal Aid Officer, Legal Services Authority, Padmanabhapuram, once in a week i.e on every Monday at 1.30 p.m to 05.00 p.m. The petitioner only is permitted to be seen with the child in the above said time within the premises of Legal Services Authority, Padmanabhapuram and the petitioner is not permitted to take the child outside the premises of the Legal Services Authority. Both parties do bear their own cost."
(3.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Lower Court, the father preferred C.R.P.No.2400 of 2012. Similarly, the mother also preferred C.R.P.No.2651 of 2012 as against the same order.;