IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2775 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.785/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- DR.SUNIL MENON, S/O P.DINAKARAN, RESIDING AT SUNIL NIVAS, VIYYUR POST, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BHASKARAN SRI.V.K.NANDAKUMARAN SRI.P.S.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. DR.VEENA CHANDRASEKHARAN, D/O R.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, CHANDRAKANDAM, PUNNALIPARAMBIL, PARAMBUSSERY POST, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST., PRESENTLY IN THE ADDRESS KIMS HOSPITAL AND SURGICAL CENTRE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAPUZHA NAGAR POST, PIN 682 033. 2. VINAYAK, AGED 7 YEARS, SON OF THE PETITIONER AND THE IST RESPONDENT PRESENTLY RESIDING WITH THE IST RESPONDENT, PUNNALIPARAMBIL, MINOR REP.BY MOTHER IST RESPONDENT, PARAMBUSSERY POST, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST. - 682 031. BY ADV.K.GIRIJA THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(F.C.)No.2775/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.41/2010 DTD.21.1.2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No.785/2009 DTD.8.1.2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION IN I.A.NO.86/2010 IN O.P.NO.785/2009. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.No.4112/2011 IN O.P.No.785/2009. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.No.4115/2011IN O.P.No.785/2009. true copy P.S.TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- O.P.(FC) No.2775 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th August, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J The petitioner and the first respondent divorced on mutual consent. They had also consensus about the custody of their only son and visitorial rights for the father. Unfortunately, with passage of time, they could not arrive at a consensus in changing the schedule of the visitorial rights though, according to the first respondent, that became necessary because she came down to India and the child is now undergoing education in a scheme covered by Indian Government or Kerala State Government norms. This means that the annual vacation would be sometime in March-April and not in the month leading to Ramzan as it would have been had the child continued to study in Sharjah. Today, in the presence of the parties and the child, the learned counsel for both parties have made submissions which essentially gives a quietus to the controversy. The O.P.FC No.2775/2011 2 petitioner leaves for Sharjah on 28.8.2011. The child does not have school on 27.8.2011 because it is Saturday. He will, therefore, be produced before the Family Court, Ernakulam, so that he could be with his father on that day. Insofar as the fourteen days' visitorial rights of the father is concerned, with the consent of the parties it is recorded that it will stand rescheduled to be sometime during which the child would have his mid-summer vacation. The first respondent will intimate the petitioner over e-mail about the period of the child's mid-summer vacation, so that the petitioner can arrange his visit to India to see the child appropriately. Original Petition is ordered accordingly. sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/