A.Hariprasad, J.
Petitioner is the grandfather of Bettina, aged 4 years. Petitioner's son Basil married the third respondent on 18-05-2009. Thereafter, their relationship went into a rough weather. The third respondent left the matrimonial home with the minor child to live in her parent's house. The petitioner and his wife Valsa James being the grandfather and grandmother of the child Bettina, were taking care of the child until she was taken away from their home. Petitioner submitted that he is so intimate to the child and he asked for visitorial rights before the court below. As per Ext.P5 order, the court below allowed the petitioner and his wife to meet the child as per the following directions :
“Considering the circumstances, the petition stands allowed on permitting them to O.P (F.C) No.306 of 2014 2 visit/see the child on 1st and 3rd Saturdays for 2 hours, w.e.f 10.30 a.m on till 12.30, at court premises or on 1st and 3rd Sundays at the premises of St.George Church, Palarivattom, or in the presence of the priest therein, from 9 a.m till 12 noon, the respondents shall produce the child before court, or in the church wherever the venue is opted by the petitioners. In case the respondent has got any option in choosing the venue, they are also at liberty to opt. ”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, in flagrant violation of the directions in Ext.P5 order, abstained from producing the child either before the Family Court, Ernakulam or in the church mentioned therein. Grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of making complaint before the Family Court by way of filing Exts.P8 and P9 applications, no action has been taken against the erring respondents or to restore the visitorial right to the petitioner.
O.P (F.C) No.306 of 2014 3 The prayer in the petition is to issue direction to the Family Court, Ernakulam to consider Exts.P8 and P9 applications and pass orders in respect of violation of Ext.P5 order by the respondents. We considered the averments in the petition and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen that appearance of respondents is not necessary for disposal of this petition, considering the orders that we are going to pass herein.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The learned Judge, Family Court, Ernakulam is directed to consider Exts.P8 and P9 application filed by the petitioners and his wife on merit and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from today.
Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
amk Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.