V.K.Mohanan, J.
The petitioner, who is the father of the ward namely, Sidharth Narayan preferred the above Original Petition aggrieved by the order dated 01-02-2014 in I.A No.2622/2013 in O.P No.137/2013 of Family Court, Nedumangad by which the petitioner's request, to comply with the direction of this court in the judgment dated 13-11-2013 in Mat. Appeal No.665/2013, thereby to hand over the child to the petitioner on alternate Saturdays at 11.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m, rejected stating that the respondent herein had complied with the said direction.
2. We heard Sri.Gopakumar R.Thaliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.K.Ananda Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was dissolved as per Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioner was the former husband of the respondent and the said ward namely Sidharth Narayan was born in the said wedlock. As some difference of opinion occurred among the spouses which ultimately culminated in the court proceedings. Thus the wife, respondent herein filed O.P No.585/2012 for dissolution of marriage, whereas the husband, petitioner herein preferred O.P No.2379/2012 for restitution of conjugal rights and he had also preferred O.P No.137/2013 for the custody of the above said ward. The Family Court, Nedumangad by a common judgment dated 31-07-2013 allowed the petition for divorce filed by the wife, respondent herein and dismissed the petition filed by the present petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. However, the court below by the very same common judgment partly allowed O.P No.137/2013 filed by the present petitioner for the custody of the child, stating that the mother-the respondent herein shall be in the permanent custody of the child but the petitioner-the lawful guardian given visitation right and further giving access to the child for two hours each on every alternate Saturdays between 11.00 a.m till 1.00 p.m in the premises of the Family Court, till the child attains the age of 8. It is also provided in the said order that in case of change of circumstance, the father, the petitioner herein has every right to approach the said court for alternation of that order.
4. Against the above judgment, particularly against O.P No.137/2013, the petitioner herein preferred Mat.Appeal No.665/2013 and a Division Bench of this court by judgment dated 13-11-2013 modified the order issued by the Family Court in O.P No.137/2013, as per which this Court directed the mother to produce the child before the Family Court as ordered in the impugned judgment and the production time is modified as 11.00 a.m on alternate Saturdays and on such production it is ordered that the child shall be given to the custody of the appellant, who is further directed to return the child at 4.00 p.m in the same day evening itself.
5. Complaining that the said modified order is not complied with, the petitioner herein preferred I.A No.2622/2013 for permanent custody of the child in O.P No.137/2013which has been already disposed by the Family Court, Nedumangad. However, holding that there is no serious complaint and the orders of the High Court being complied with the learned Judge of the Family Court closed the above petition. It is against the above petition the petitioner came before this court in this second round litigation.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the modified order of this court, the petitioner is entitled to get custody of the child and he is free to take the child outside the premises of the Family Court, Nedumangad, but he is not permitted for the same. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that as per Ext.P5 order, this Court had only modified or extended the time, upholding the visitation right of the petitioner and this Court never intended to permit the petitioner to take out the child from the premises of the court below.
7. On an anxious consideration of the entire issue and the facts and circumstances involved in the case and on a close perusal of Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, we find that this Court by Ext.P2 judgment, intended to grant the custody of the child to the petitioner so as to enable both the child and his father have a full company and thereby to create emotional bondage between the lawful guardian and the child. If there was no such intention in issuing Ext.P2 judgment, there was no meaning for extending the time from 11.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m. since the visitation time already granted was sufficient for that purpose. So according to us what required is only a clarification. Accordingly, this O.P is disposed of clarifying that the petitioner, who is the lawful guardian of the ward namely Sidharth Narayan is entitled to get the custody and full company of his ward at 11.00 a.m on every alternate Saturdays and he is free to take the child outside from the premises of the Family Court, Nedumangad as per the arrangement made and thereafter he is bound to produce the child at 4.00 p.m on the same day evening at the court premises. With the above clarification, this O.P (F.C) is closed.
Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
amk //True copy// P.A to Judge