ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Dr. Raju, counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.A. Noor Mohamed, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. These appeals arise from the proceeding between an estranged couple for the custody of their child (being a minor daughter). 4. Both the appellant and the respondent are Indian citizens but they are living in Dubai. 5. According to the appellant, the wife, their marriage is no longer subsisting and it stands dissolved by the pronouncement of some authority in Dubai. Following the dissolution of the marriage by the Dubai Court, the respondent has been seeking the custody of the child or at least visitation rights to her by instituting proceedings before the Kerala High Court. 6. At one stage, the parties appeared to have entered into settlement before the High Court and in terms of the settlement arrived at between them the High Court passed certain orders in connection with the respondent's visitation rights to the child. 7. The directions of the High Court were to be carried out in Dubai since both the parties reside there. It appears that at some later stage the directions given by the High Court were not complied with and the respondent once again went to High Court complaining about the violation of the settlement by the appellant and her disobedience of the Court's order. In this connection he filed a contempt petition and a petition for review of the earlier order. On the petitions filed by the respondent, the Kerala High Court seems to have gone on passing further orders in light of the settlement between the parties and its earlier order on that basis, giving directions to the appellant to facilitate the respondent's visitations to the child. These directions once again are to be carried out in Dubai where the appellant has been living all the while with he child. 8. In passing the orders the Kerala High Court seems to have overlooked the fact that as long as the appellant is in Dubai, she is out of the Court's control and the Court has no means to have its directions enforced in a foreign country. For this simple reason, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the High Court. The order dated August 18, 2009 is, accordingly, set aside and the appeals are allowed. 9. For this simple reason, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the High Court. The order dated August 18, 2009 is, accordingly, set aside and the appeals are allowed. 9. The order passed by this Court shall, however, not stand in the way of the respondent in seeking appropriate remedies as may be available to him in law.