IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 507 of 2009() ---------------------------- OPGW.69/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- R. RASHEED, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.BASHEER, KUZHIYVILA VEEDU, KARIMPINKONAM, EROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHAHIDA, AGED 38, W/O.THAJUDEEN, THADATHAZHIKATHU VEEDU, TANZEER MANZIL, KANNACODE, KUMMIL P.O., KUMMIL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 2. KHADEEJA BEEVI, AGED 55, W/O.BASHEER, KUZHIYVILA VEEDU, KARIMPINKONAM, EROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 3. (MINOR WARD( RAUFIL AMEEN, AGED 2 YEARS, KUZHIYVILA VEEDU, KARIMPINKONAM, EROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mat.Appeal No.507 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J A meaningless appeal, that is what we feel about this appeal. The impugned order relates to custody of a minor child aged 2 years. The mother of the child is no more. The appellant is the father of the child. The maternal grand mother of the child filed O.P(GW) 69/2008. She prayed that the child may be given over to her custody. In the course of the proceedings, it appears that there was agreement and consent on both sides. Accepting that consent/agreement, the impugned order was passed by the Family Court. Custody was not granted to the maternal grandmother; but she was granted visitorial rights. It was directed that “C.P will take the ward to petitioner's house on all Sundays and give custody to her from 9 a.m to 5.00 p.m on those days.” 2. It is this direction which is challenged by the appellant. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no agreement that the appellant will take the child to the house of the maternal grandmother. He is employed abroad. He will have to go to his Mat.Appeal No.507/09 2 place of employment. He will not be able to take the child to the maternal grand mother on all Sundays as directed. The paternal grand mother (the 2nd respondent herein) will also not be able to undertake trips every Sunday to take the child to the maternal grand mother. It is in these circumstances that this appeal is preferred. 3. We find absolutely no merit in the grievance. It is idle for the appellant to construe the impugned direction No.2 which is extracted above to mean that he must give up his employment abroad and remain in India to comply with the said direction. The order was passed on consent and we feel that the appellant must be gracious to ensure that the two year old child is taken to the 1st respondent maternal grand mother either by himself if he is available or by someone authorised by him if he is not available in India. He must so ensure compliance. 4. We find no merit in the challenge raised. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr Mat.Appeal No.507/09 3 Mat.Appeal No.507/09 4 Mat.Appeal No.507/09 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 18/06/2009