IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 389 of 2009() ---------------------------- GOP.359/2008 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------- VIPITHA, AGED 26, D/O.NADAPARAMBIL VIJAYAN, ELAMTHURUTHI DESOM, P.O.ELAMTHURUTHI, MARATHAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- RAJAN, AGED 38, S/O.MULANGATUKARA VASU, KALLUR DESOM, KALLUR VILLAGE, P.O.KALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.389 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Family Court in an application for permanent custody of the minor child, filed by the father. The father, in the course of the proceedings, did not press the claim for custody, but was granted an order granting him visitorial rights. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the visitorial rights granted to the respondent, the father of the child. 3. We note that the visitorial rights are given for the first six months on the second Saturdays of every month from 10Am to 4PM. After six months, the visitorial rights shall be available on the second Saturdays and Sundays of every month from 10AM to 4 PM. 4. What is the grievance of the appellant? Paternity is not disputed. The learned counsel for the appellant in the course of the discussions submits that the real grievance is that under the pretext of enforcing his visitorial rights, the respondent is causing unnecessary hardship, tension and trauma in the house of the Mat.A.No.389/09 -2- appellant. 5. If that be the case, what need be done by the appellant is to approach the Family Court and to make sure that the arrangements for visitorial rights are worked out in such a manner that it causes no difficulty or hardship for the appellant. If such an application is filed before the Family Court, needless to say, the Family Court must forthwith consider the same and make appropriate arrangements for the harmonious implementation of the visitorial rights after hearing both sides. We are not satisfied that to make such arrangements this appeal need be admitted. 6. With the above observations, this appeal is dismissed. 7. Handover a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the appellant for producing the same before the Family Court when appropriate application is made before that court. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn