IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2436 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OPGW.352/2011 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. ------------------------------------------ REEJA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.LATE K..D.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KACHAMKODATH HOUSE, MANIMOOLI P.O., VAZHIKADVU,NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.JAMES SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL SRI.M.J.ABRAHAM SMT.SANGIMOL A.MENACHERY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILSON, GED 39 YEARS,S/O.KURIAN, RESIDING AT THAZATHEDATH HOUSE, PALEMADU P.O., EDAKKARA, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OPFC NO.2436/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.585/2011 IN O.P.(G&W) NO. 352/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN I.A.NO.585 OF 2011 I N O.P.(G&W)NO.352/2011 OF FAMILY COURT MALAPPURAM. EXT.P3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.5.7.2011 IN I.A.NO. 585 OF 2011 IN OP(G&W) NO.352/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.23/2008 DTD.26.12.2009 OF JFCM COURT, NILAMBUR. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- OP (FC)No.2436 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th July, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J This Original Petition filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India is by the wife. Impugned is an order of interlocutory nature permitting the husband to have the company of the two children from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on all Sundays. Ext.P4 is an order against the husband under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Yet, we are inclined to think that there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order since the biological father of the children is entitled to maintain familiarity with them. This is a need, not only of the parent, but a right of the children also. All that has been granted is just the right of visitation and this will only grow the familiarity between the children and the father. We, therefore, are unable to accede to the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the younger child is not familiar with the father. 2. We, however, see the anxiety of the mother that O.P.(FC)No.2436 of 2011 2 the continuous period of visitation for a period of 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. may sometimes affect the proper feeding of the second child which is around three years. This is an aspect which the mother can bring to the notice of the Family Court and seek some modification of the impugned order, if it becomes necessary. The Family Court has the jurisdiction to pass such orders as may be found fit to take care of all such situations. 3. We are sure that the dispute between the parties should not be further precipitated, but if possible it should be settled amicably by way of mediation or otherwise. The learned counsel for the petitioner tells us that the counsel on the opposite side in the lower court has indicated that there could be some conciliatory proceedings. We record the submission and request the judge of the Family Court to consider this aspect of the matter as well. Subject to what is aforesaid, this Original Petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/