The Kerala High Court stated that a party cannot be stopped from claiming rights if the error was made by the court itself. The court has a duty to fix its own mistakes.
The Kerala High Court stated that a party cannot be stopped from correcting a mistake made by the Court itself. The Court has a duty to fix its errors. This was mentioned during a series of Review Petitions concerning the custody of a minor child. A Division Bench, including Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, noted that if the Court’s records are not properly maintained, the Family Court may struggle to make correct decisions later. They emphasized that a party cannot be held to a previous decision if the Court has made a mistake.
The Review Petitions were closely related. In the main case, the husband was the Petitioner and the wife was the Respondent, with the issue being the custody of their child. The Petitioner asked the Family Court to declare him the child’s guardian. The case was settled through mediation, granting permanent custody to the Respondent while allowing the Petitioner visitation rights. Later, when the Respondent remarried and moved to Canada for studies, leaving the child with her parents in India, the Petitioner sought permanent custody. Meanwhile, the Respondent requested permission to take the child to Canada. The Family Court rejected the Petitioner’s request but approved the Respondent’s. The Petitioner appealed this decision, leading to the High Court reviewing the case.
The High Court, after considering both sides’ arguments, stated, “It is clear that the order being reviewed contains a significant error. Any custody order, whether temporary or permanent, can be changed if circumstances change. Therefore, even the Family Court orders challenged in this case can be modified later if needed.” The Court also pointed out that the Petitioner is concerned about the right given to the Respondent to apply to the Family Court for permission to take the child to Canada after her studies and when she finds a job. The order also stated that the Petitioner’s right to take the child to his workplace is dependent on the Respondent’s right.
“We believe this is an unfair advantage the Respondent gained due to a mistake made by this Court. Based on previous Family Court orders, the Respondent should not have this right. To maintain the benefit of this order, which she is not entitled to, the Respondent is using the principle of approbate and reprobate to dismiss the review petition,” it continued. As a result, the High Court approved the Review Petitions and overturned the order in question.
Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:8535)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Dhanya P. Ashokan, Advocates M.R. Venugopal, and S. Muhammed Alikhan. Respondents: Advocates Praveen K. Joy and E.S. Saneej.
