IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24837 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OPG&W.506/2008 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ RAMAN .G., S/O.LATE GOVINDAN NAIR 45 YEARS, KOOVAKKATTU HOUSE, PALLAMTHURUTH NORTH PARAVOOR PO., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MEENA, D/O.PADMAKUMARI, AGED 43, 9/104, REVATHI, PARAKKUNNAM, PUTHUR VILLAGE PALAKKAD TALUK, NOW R/AT.VII/118(20) NAVANEETHAM, OPPT.LOTUS APARTMENTS, KTRISHNA NANDI ROAD, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD-678009. 2. HARI PRASAD, S/O.LATE DR.ACHUTHA MENON R/AT.VII/118(20) NAVANEETHAM, OPP.LOTUS APARTMENTS KRISHNA NANDI ROAD, PUTHOOR PO., PALAKKAD-678009. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.24837/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE PHOTO COPY OF DECREE IN DIVORCE O.P.65/98 DATED 15-12-98. EXT.P2. TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER'S SON DATED 18-7-08. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE DIAGNOSIS LETTER, OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1-4-96 ISSUED BY KGN MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, COIMBATORE. EXT.P4. COPY OF POETRY IN ENGLISH WRITTEN BY PETITIONER'S SON. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF G & W O.P.506/08 FILED BEFORE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 4-8-2008. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF I.A.1635/08 FOR INTERIM CUSTODY DATED 4-8-2008. EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF I.A.1635/08 AND INTERIM INJUNCTION APPLICATION. EXT.P8. TRUE COPY OF I.A.1637/08 FOR APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.24837 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. The petitioner, respondents and their relatives are present. We have talked to the parties and we have also heard the counsel on both sides. This is a situation where the parties involved have to realise, accept and acknowledge certain realities. Raman was wedded to the first respondent Meena and in that marriage they have one child Abhimanyu. Unfortunately they could not continue their relationship and that marriage was dissolved. Raman went for another marriage with Vidya and Meena married Hari Prasad. Hari Prasad was originally wedded to Dr.Prameela and in that relationship they have two children. That relationship also unfortunately got strained and the marriage ended in dissolution and the children are with Dr.Prameela. Meena submits that she has recently undergone a total hysterectomy. The resultant position is that Abhimanyu is the only child born to Meena. As far as Vidya is concerned she W.P(C)No.24837 of 2008 -:2:- was earlier married to one Mr.Raveendran and in that marriage they have one daughter. Again unfortunately that relationship could not last long and their marriage ended in dissolution. The child is with Vidya. In Vidya Raman has another child Sanjay Raman. So, with all these unusual combinations the emerging position is that there is a new generation headed by Rohit, the first child of Mr.Hari Prasad followed by Abhimanyu, followed by Varun, followed by Sanjana and reaching presently at Sanjay Raman. The parents from all sides should realise that they had strained relationships and they have new relationships. But their children should not be torn in between. The children should be told and taught to maintain their original relationship and they should also be made aware of their right to have the love, care, share, affection and protection of both parents. The parents also should equally respond to the rights of their children, some of which we have referred to above. 2. One consoling factor available in this case is that the great grand-mother Smt.K.Rajalakshmi, is the pillar of solace in this confused situation. She graciously submits that she will W.P(C)No.24837 of 2008 -:3:- take care of the fact situation and try to co-ordinate and develop a healthy relationship among all the parties. She also submitted that she will organise one or more Onasadhyas with all the available parties referred to above. 3. Having talked to Master Abhimanyu we feel that for the time being he needs a little change. We suggested that he could be shifted to any school in North Paravoor and be kept in the custody of his grand-mother Rajalakshmi. Smt.Rajalakshmi submits that she will take care of Abhimanyu. This suggestion is accepted by all. So we permit Raman and Rajalakshmi to take the necessary follow up action in that regard. Master Abhimanyu shall continue to have the warm attachment to his mother and to his Harimaman. They shall be permitted to talk to Abhimanyu constantly and atleast twice a month Abhimanyu shall pay a visit to his mother and Harimaman at Palakkad and stay with them in the available holidays. 4. We record our deep appreciation for the open minded approach shown by all the parties concerned, after realising their respective positions. In view of the disposal of the writ petition W.P(C)No.24837 of 2008 -:4:- as above, it is submitted that the petitioner does not want to pursue the allegations or any case against the respondents. Therefore the allegations in O.P.(G & W)No.506/2008 are expunged and the said petition is dismissed as withdrawn and consequently the case shall be struck off from the file of the Family Court. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- W.P(C)No.24837 of 2008 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 22nd August, 2008