THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR F.C.A. No. 275 of 2010 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This Family Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 21.07.2010 passed in O.P. No. 471 of 2008 by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. The appellants herein are the parents-in-law of the respondent herein. They filled the aforesaid petition, seeking to appoint them as guardians of their minor grandson namely Rohit Raj, who is in custody of his mother, the respondent herein, and to grant them his custody. Before the Court below, it was the case of the appellants that their son i.e. the husband of the respondent died in a motor accident, that after the death of their son, the respondent is staying with her parents along with the child and she is not allowing them even to visit their grandson, that she does not look after the child with care, that she is not in a position to maintain the child, that she is proposing to go for second marriage, in the event of which the child would not be taken proper care of, and that they are having sufficient means to look after the child and they will look after him with great care and love and affection. Respondent resisted the claim of the appellants by filing counter and she mainly contended that she, being the mother of the child, is his natural guardian and is entitled for his custody and the present petition is not maintainable during her lifetime. The Court bellow, having considered the matter in detail, partly allowed the petition, granting visitation rights to the petitioners on 1st and 3rd Sundays of every month and directing the 2nd petitioner to pickup the child Rohit Raj at the house of the respondent at about 9.00 a.m. and drop him at about 3.00 p.m., and dismissed the rest of the claim, by the order under appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record. The matter being relating to the custody of the minor child, the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. As can be seen from the order under appeal, the minor boy was examined by the learned trial Judge in her chambers during enquiry in the interlocutory application filed by the appellants for interim custody of the child, and he expressed his unwilling to stay with the appellants. Thus, it is clear that the child is not interested to stay with her grandparents. Further, mother is the natural guardian of the child, next to the father, and the child should be brought up with the love and affection of the mother in his tender age. However, the appellants, being grandparents of the child, do have love and affection towards him and therefore they cannot be deprived of the right to visit him and spend some time with him. Considering all these facts, the Court below has granted visitation rights to the appellants on every 1st and 3rd Sundays of every month as indicated above and dismissed the rest of their claim. We are of the considered opinion that the order under appeal is a justifiable order and no interference is warranted by this Court. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that during summer vacation, the child should be permitted to stay for some more time with the appellants, beyond the time granted by the Court below. The appellants are always at liberty to move the Court below in this regard, by filing an appropriate application, and if any such application is filed, the Court below shall consider the same on its own merits. The Family Court Appeal is accordingly dismissed, with the above observation. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. 23rd November, 2010 IBL