FAO No.3732 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.3732 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 16.07.2010 **** Parkasho and another . . . . Appellants VS. Manju and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellants. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred by the grand-parents of minor Krishan Kumar (aged 10 years) against an order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib (exercising the powers of District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act) dated 3.1.2008 by which an application filed by the appellants as the guardian of the person and property of the minor-Krishan Kumar has been declined on the ground that in the presence of natural guardian (mother) neither the custody nor right of guardianship of the person and property of the minor-Krishan Kumar can be given to the parents. In the present appeal, notice of motion was issued on 10.2.2009 and at that time following order was recorded:- FAO No.3732 of 2008 -2- “The only point raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that being the grand parents of the minor, they should also be given visiting rights to meet the minor off and on. So far as the other prayer in the appeal is concerned, that is not being pressed and the same is being dismissed as such. Notice of motion for 5.5.2009” On 8.10.2009, respondent No.1 (mother of the minor) was deemed to have been served when she had refused to accept the notice of this Court. Respondent No.2 is the general public. On 21.4.2010, the case was fixed by this Court for argument for today. No one has come present on behalf of the respondents. Mr.Vijay Lath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has repeated the same prayer which was made at the time when notice of motion was issued. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the available record. No doubt that the appellants are real grand parents (dada and dadi) of minor-Krishan Kumar. They had lost their son Ramesh Chand in an unfortunate road accident on 2.11.2002. They have also deposed that they have no other child in the family except minor-Krishan Kumar. Respondent No.1 Manju has got remarried with one Maghi and is residing in her matrimonial home along with minor-Krishan Kumar. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case, where the appellants are not claiming even the custody and rights of guardianship FAO No.3732 of 2008 -3- of the minor-Krishan Kumar, I deem it appropriate to grant them visitation rights to meet their minor grand-son once in three months, on first Sunday of the month after informing the respondents about their visit. Respondents would not raise any objection since they have not contested the present appeal before this Court. With the abovesaid observations, present appeal is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 16.07.2010 JUDGE Vivek