IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3954 of 2011(R) -------------------------- OP.1212/2011 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................. PETITIONER'S : ------------------------ 1. RACHEL CHACKO (JINCY), RESIDING AT RAJU BHAVANAM, 2. SANTHA, BOTH RESIDING AT 11, GOWTHAM QUARTERS, WATER TANK, KANJIKODE P.O, PALAKKAD- 68 621 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD RESPONDENT : ----------------------- GRACY SAMUEL, RESIDING AT KODIYIL PUTHENVEEDU, AYANI VILLAGE, S.V.MARKET P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM- 690 573. BY THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP (FC).No. 3954 of 2011(R) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR CUSTODY ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA DTD. 04.05.2010 EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO EXT.P1 DTD. 18.07.201 EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 4257/2011 IN OP NO. 1212/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DTD. 28.07.2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------- O.P(FC).No.3954 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.This writ petition reflects the unfortunate fate of a 6 year old minor child, whose father, then working in Malabar Cements, died as a result of a motor accident. The widow got employment on compassionate grounds. The boy grows with the mother. The paternal grandmother has been given temporary visitation rights as per the impugned order passed in July, 2007, whereby, the court below has directed that the child will be with the paternal grandmother for 5 days during Onam, 5 days during Christmas and for 7 days each in March and April, during the mid-summer recess. OPFC.3954/11 2 2.It is stated that the child went to the paternal grandmother's home for Onam. While we hear the learned counsel for the petitioners saying that the order has become unworkable having regard to the fact that the child has fallen sick and also that it does not appear to be interested to go to the paternal grandmother's home, we are clear in our mind that the order has to be worked out as it now stands. The learned counsel for the petitioners, who are the mother and maternal grandmother of the child, says that the wishes of the child was not ascertained by the learned Judge of the Family Court while issuing Ext.P3. 3.For a minor child of about 6 ½ years of age, that too, one who has lost his father, maternal guidance alone is not sufficient. It is in his best interest that he shall not be distanced from the paternal relations. Equally, the maternal relations and paternal relations have the duty to ensure that OPFC.3954/11 3 the child is guided without having the feeling of loneliness. They have to take care of him rather than litigate. 4. We are told that there is an MACT award and some LIC policies. Money is only compensation and not substitute for paternal care and love that the father would give to the child. Monetary considerations attendant to such situations should stand subservient to the primary requirement to the physical and emotional evolution of the minor son, deprived by fate, of paternal companionship, guidance, love and care. The mother and the grandparents on both sides have also the moral duty in this regard, to keep the child in better emotional shape and physical well being and take care of its best interests rather than inviting the court to ascertain as to what would be in the best interest of the child. 5.For the aforesaid reasons, while dismissing this writ petition, we clarify that the petitioners will be at liberty to OPFC.3954/11 4 bring to the notice of the court below any situation which may require its attention, including for ascertaining the views of the child. However, this shall be only after the impugned order is satisfied as far as the X'mas holidays of 2011 is concerned. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Judge. kkb.15/12.