IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP (FC).No. 1345 of 2011(R) -------------------------------------- OP.2168/2010 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER (S) /RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- ARATHI,NANDHAVANAM,SAHARIBAYA ROAD, NORTH KANNANPURAM,NORTH EDAPPALLY,KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- AMRITHA RAJ,S/O.SURENDRAN, ASHOKA BHAVANAM,NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, THEVALAPURAM,PUTHOOR,KOLLAM,PIN-691507. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(FC) No.1345 of 2011-R ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner challenges Ext.P5. Petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.2168/2010 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The respondent has filed original petition seeking declaration that he is the guardian of the minor children and also for the custody of minor children. By the impugned order, the Court has noted that the paternity of the children is not in dispute and being the father, respondent is entitled to have access to the children once in a month that is on the 4th Saturday of every month from 2 p.m to 4 p.m at the Court premises. Five hundred rupees towards conveyance charge was also given. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would press two arguments. Firstly, it is pointed out that even according to the father, the 2nd child is illegitimate. He would further contend that the direction to make available the children at the Court premises may require interference and the petitioner is prepared to produce OPFC 1345/2011 -2- the children elsewhere. We must remind ourselves that this is a petition under Article 227. As far as the Ist ground is concerned, we are of the view that this is a case where as stated by the Family Court there is no dispute regarding the paternity of the children. May be it is a case that the 2nd child is illegitimate. Merely because the 2nd child is illegitimate it cannot in any way detract from the respondent being the father of the child. In matters of these nature when what is provided by the Family Court is access to the children, we should be loathe to interfere with the order particularly under Article 227. The Court has directed to produce the children at the Court premises. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is no jurisdictional error. The Original Petition is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS