IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 MFA.No. 73 of 2008() ----------------------------- OP.187/2005 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ GANESAN, S/O PARAMESWARA IYYER, SANKARA BHVAN, PADAYANARKULANGRA, THEKKUMMURIYIL, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: -------------------- KALAVATHY, D/O M.H. RAMAKRISHNAN, SOUPARNIKA, P.W.D. ROAD, KALPETTA, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU ADV. SMT.JASHITHA VIJAYAN THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.(G&W)No.73 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 25th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant in this case approached the Family Court for custody of the child. According to the appellant, after death of the brother of the respondent wife, she was mentally not normal. Their marriage was dissolved. When she took the child and went to her house, she left the child in the railway station. But, according to the respondent, she is a handicapped lady. When the train reached Ernakulam, she went out to collect drinking water and by the time she returned after taking water, the train left. She informed the matter to the station master. Then, from the next railway station she took the child and she is looking after the child well. The child is now studying in the school and she is aged 11. According to the respondent, the appellant did not ask for the child till getting notice in the maintenance case and not even a single paise of maintenance was given to the child till the filing of the petition and she is looking after the child. Considering all these factors, the Family Court found that custody of the child with the mother at the tender age need not be changed. The counsel for the appellant submits that visitation right was not specifically granted. The MFA (G&W).73/2008 2 Family Court observed as follows: “Being the father of the child he is at the liberty to see the child. The respondent will not cause any inconvenience for the same. This issue is answered accordingly.” It is the submission of the appellant that time for visit etc. are not mentioned. Interim custody is not yet granted. We make it clear that appellant is free to move before the Family Court for getting such reliefs. Even though finding of the Family Court is that the appellant is not entitled to get custody of the child at present, for any clarification, interim custody etc. he can move the Family Court and the Family Court can give specific timings for visit. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks