IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 549 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- O.P.(G&W)NO.320/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: -------------------- BIJU P.P., S/O.PAVITHRAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PURAKKADAMBIL, MARAVANTHURUTHU P.O., KULASEKHARAMANGALAM, VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- MANOJA, D/O.VASU, AGED 34 YEARS, THERUVAKKALAYIL, IRUMBAYAM P.O., VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM- 686 605. BY THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & N.K.Balakrishnan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mat.Appeal No.549 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Respondent-wife was granted a decree dissolving the marriage on the ground that the appellant had deserted and had also been cruel to her. The appellant was given custody of the 8 year old minor child. Its mother was given visitation rights to have the child's company for two days in a month during a week end. The decree for divorce is final. The child's father appeals against the order for visitation rights granted to the mother. 2.We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and looked into the materials. P.W.1 is the wife. P.W.2 is her father. R.W.1 is the husband. In so MA549/11 -: 2 :- far as it is relevant to the question of visitation rights, the testimony of P.W.2, the father of the wife, indicates that the respondent-wife had mental depression and her twin sister had some mental disorder. He says that such situation of the respondent followed the loss of the younger child by drowning. The appellant-husband stands to say that the respondent was so even at the time of marriage and some how they lived together and that the death of the child occurred at the hands of the wife and it was not a case of accidental drowning. We find that there is no evidence or police records to that effect, though the learned counsel for the appellant may be justified in indicating that the situation was one where the husband was trying to reconcile the situation rather than precipitate matters further on that count. We do not find any medical evidence on record. Nor do we see that the husband had made any attempt during the marriage, to obtain medical assistance to the wife for any mental MA549/11 -: 3 :- depression which he would describe as serious in nature, even life threatening to the surviving child. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order giving visitation rights to the mother for two days in a month. 3.We, however, see the apprehensions that appear to be working in the mind of the appellant. His learned counsel submits that even two days' visitation rights for the wife amounts to round- the-clock custody of the child with the mother and that this would not be in the interest of the child, having regard to issues relatable to its safety. He also says that the child is in no mood to be with the mother at all. We are not persuaded by this. Long association with a parent to the exclusion of the other would, normally, result in, at least, a superficial detachment in the mind of the child as against the parent who is away. That is only an issue which has to be managed through proper counselling of the child, MA549/11 -: 4 :- including, if necessary, by the intervention of the Family Court. The child is an eight year old boy. We are sure that he will be open to proper interaction, exposing him to love and affection, rather than put him within the rigid format of the statute laws or for judicial determination of how he should behave to his mother. Taking into consideration the appellant's apprehension that the child may not be safe in the mother's custody for two days a month, we order that the appellant, if so advised, may move the Family Court for appropriate orders even for the availability of P.W.2, the maternal grand father of the child and obtain such assurances, including, if necessary, by issuing orders as may be necessary. Within the format of the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984, we see jurisdiction in abundance, for the Judge of the Family Court to take care of such situations when it essentially holds parens patriae authority. 4.At any rate, we do not find any ground to MA549/11 -: 5 :- entertain this appeal and interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, subject to whatever stated above regarding the visitation rights as regards the child, this appeal is dismissed in limine. Sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sd/- N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge. Sha/1407 -true copy- P.S.to Judge.