IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No. 382 of 2011 Ved Prakash Yadev. ………. Appellant Versus Smt. Vinita Yadev @ Neelu Yadev & others. ..………. Respondents Mr. Chandramauli Shah, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) Delay Condonation Application No. 9504 of 2011: The learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the Application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. We have also considered the averments made therein and, being satisfied therewith, allow the same. Appeal from Order No. 382 of 2011; Appellant has filed a suit for injunction against the respondents and, therein, has prayed for a permanent injunction against the respondents from meeting the children of the appellant. Respondent No. 1 is the wife of the appellant. The other respondents are relatives of respondent No. 1. The marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 has not yet been dissolved. The suit for injunction, restraining the mother from meeting the children and taking care of the children, is not a normal suit. It has been alleged that respondent No. 1 is schizophrenic. On that ground, it is being claimed that respondent No. 1 should be restrained from meeting her own children. 2. Until such time it is established by evidence to be tendered that respondent No. 1 is in such a mental state that if she is permitted to meet her own children, the same would result in direct physical or mental 2 injury to her own children; no court, either by permanent injunction or by temporary injunction, could restrain the mother from meeting the children and taking care of them. We, accordingly, hold that the learned judge rightly refused to grant an interim order, as was prayed for by the appellant. It shall be open to the appellant to seek for expedition of the decision in the suit. In the normal circumstances, a child must grow in association with his near relatives. There is no just reason to deprive a child from the loving care of his grand-parents. A very strong case is required to be made out for that purpose, which appears to have not been made out as yet. 3. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 20.12.2011 20.12.2011 G