P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
Judgment in O.P.(G&W) No.132 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla is under challenge in this appeal. O.P.(G&W) No.132 of 2011 is filed by the respondent against the appellant for declaring him as guardian of his minor daughter who was aged 2 years at the time of institution of the proceedings. The said case was tried along with O.P. No.184 of 2008 filed by the appellant against the respondent for realisation of gold ornaments alleged to be entrusted to him. As per common judgment dated 28.03.2014, the Family Court allowed O.P. No.184 of 2008 in part permitting the appellant to recover 43.63 sovereigns of gold ornaments from him. As per O.P. (G&W) No.132 of 2011, the Family Court granted only visitorial rights to the husband. The operative portion of the common judgment concerning O.P. (G&W) No.132 of 2011 reads thus:
“O.P.(G&W) No.132/2011 is decreed in part allowing the petitioner to get custody of his minor daughter Nanda aged 8 years for one day in every month from 10 A.M. of every 2nd Saturday till 9 A.M on the succeeding Sunday, 2 days each in every Onam and Christmas holidays and 5 days in every mid summer vacation. The venue and the actual date of handing over custody will be fixed at the convenience of the petitioner, respondent as well as the minor child. No costs.”
2. This appeal is filed by the wife challenging the above stated order passed by the Family Court in the guardian and ward proceedings. As is seen from the operative portion extracted above, the husband is given custody of his daughter one day in every month and 2 days each during Onam and Christmas holidays and 5 days in every mid summer vacation of the child.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the court below should not have granted over night custody of the minor female child to the father. According to her, the husband is a driver by profession and there is nobody in his house to look after the child if her custody is given over night to him. It was also contended that though the mother of the husband is staying with the husband, she is sick and undergoing dialysis and therefore, she cannot take care of the child during the period during which she is the minor child is permitted to stay with them.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband pointed out that the mother of the husband is only aged 60 years and she is in a position to take care of the minor child when the custody of the child is given to the husband.
5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is not safe to entrust custody of the minor child to the husband when he is residing alone, there is nothing on record to indicate that the apprehension expressed by the appellant is justified.
6. The mere ailment of a person cannot be treated as a ground to deny the custody of a minor child. Like the husband, his mother is also entitled to have company of her grand daughter.
In the circumstances, we do not find any justification and interfering with the directions given by the Family Court as indicated above. However, it is made clear that either of the parties to move the Family Court for modification of the directions as aforesaid if there is change of circumstances.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE //true copy// P.A. To Judge smv