Harilal, J.
These two Mat.Appeals are filed challenging the common judgment passed in O.P.(G&W) Nos.262 & 263 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Attingal. The appellants in Mat Appeal No.376 of 2014 are the petitioners in O.P.(G&W) No.263 of 2013 and the appellants in Mat Appeal No.152 of 2014 are the petitioners in O.P.(G&W) No.262 of 2013. O.P.(G&W) No.263 of 2013 was filed for the custody of the son of the first appellant in Mat.Appeal No.376/14, who is now aged 3 years by name Aslam Mubarak. The respondents therein are the maternal grandmother and uncle of the said child. O.P.(G&W) No.262 of 2013 was filed by the maternal grandmother/first appellant in Mat.Appeal No.152/14, for declaration of guardianship and also for custody of the said child Aslam Mubarak. The first respondent in the said Mat.Appeal is the father of the minor child. The mother of the child is no more. The parties are governed by Muslim Personal Law and now the child is under the custody of the first respondent in Mat. Appeal No.376 of 2014, who is the maternal grandmother of the child.
2. According to the appellant in Mat. Appeal No.376 of 2014, the first respondent is not in a position to take care of the welfare of the child and as the first appellant being the father and natural guardian of the minor child, he is fully entitled to have the custody of the child, before attaining 7 years old.
3. According to the first appellant in Mat. Appeal No.152 of 2014, their daughter Sabeena died on the 15th day after the birth of the child. From that day onwards, the minor child has been under the custody, care and protection of his maternal grandmother. The father of the child is employed in Malaysia and he is unable to look after the child with proper care.
4. After considering the rival contentions, the court below passed the impugned order granting the reliefs as given below:
“(a) The father Sri.Afeerudeen is declared as the guardian of the ward Aslam Mubarak.
(b) The custody of the ward is allowed to be continued with the maternal grandmother Smt.Suabaida Beevi until the ward is admitted to the first standard in a best school by his father or 7 years which ever is earlier. During this period the father Sri.Afeerudeen is entitled to have the custody of the child from 10 am of every alternate working Saturdays till 10 am of the next working day. Th venue to hand over the child will be this court premises.
(c) While the father is abroad or not in station, his father and mother are permitted to have access to the child from 11 am till 1 pm on every first working Saturdays of each month at the court premises.”
5. The learned counsel for the appellants in Mat.Appeal No.376/14 advanced arguments challenging the findings of the court below, whereby the custody of the child, before he attains the age of 7 years, was given to the grandmother. According to the learned counsel, the 1st appellant/father was denied of the opportunity to look after his child, during his childhood without sufficient reasons by the Family court. That apart, the impugned order under challenge is discriminatory, as regards the interim custody given to the paternal grandparents upto 7 years, when comparing with the duration of interim custody, which was directed to be given to the 1st appellant in Mat.Appeal No.152/14 after the child attaining the age of 7 years. Thus, the court below has failed to appreciate the welfare of the child in its correct perspective.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st appellant in Mat.Appeal No.152/14 advanced arguments challenging the findings of the court below, whereby the court below has granted full custody of the child, after attaining the age of 7 years, to the father. That apart, the court below went wrong by granting interim custody of the child to the paternal grandparents upto the age of 7 years. According to the learned counsel, the court below failed to consider the welfare of the child in its correct perspective. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel produced a Medical Certificate issued by a doctor, after examining the child when he was in the interim custody of the paternal grandparents, in which it is stated about the mental condition of the child during the time of visit of paternal grandparents as per the court order.
7. In view of the rival contentions advanced at the bar, the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is that whether the court below can be justified in granting full custody of the child to the maternal grandmother upto the age of 7 years with the visitation right of 2 hours in favour of the paternal grandparents and thereafter to the father with visitation right to grandmother.
8. The facts of the case are not disputed. The mother of the child aged 3 years, is no more and his father is working in Malaysia. Certainly, in the above circumstance, the grandparents either maternal or paternal have to be appointed as custodian of the child. When the natural guardian is alive, the court below can be justified in declaring him as the guardian.
9. The matters which require to be considered in deciding the custody and guardianship of the ward are different and distinct. The paramount consideration in the matter of custody, should be the welfare of the ward alone. The court has to consider the entire circumstances and welfare of the child, particularly in the absence of both the father and mother due to different reasons. The mother died on the 15th day, after the delivery of the child and now the child is aged 3 years. After his birth, he was being looked after by the maternal grandmother. So, as rightly held by the court below, it is not proper to remove the child from the custody of his maternal grand mother with whom he was living after the death of his mother, particularly when his father is working abroad. That apart, as rightly noted by the court below, the custody of the child, before he attains the age of 7 years, with the grandmother is justified by the preferential right of the grandmother under the Personal Law. But we are of the opinion that, the natural guardian cannot be denied of their right to have the custody of the child after attaining the age of 7 years ; particularly when the grandmother is getting old. So, the court below can be justified in granting custody of the child to his father after the child attains 7 years.
10. Coming to the visitation right, we are of the opinion that, both the maternal and paternal grandparents have equal right to get the company of their grandchildren so as to share their love and affection towards them. Though the Personal law gives a preferential right as regards the guardianship to the maternal grandparents, the same yardstick cannot be taken in the matter of interim custody of the children.
11. We have meticulously considered the opinion expressed by the doctor ; but we are of the opinion that, even if the contents of the letter are taken at its face value, the same cannot be interpreted to mean that it reflects any kind of aversion towards the paternal grandparents. In the certificate also, the doctor observed that, on the next day, the child was cheerful and playing well and his oral thrush was also getting better. At the most, it is nothing more than a reluctance to get accustomed with the new circumstance, considering the fact that the child was being looked after by the maternal grandmother since his birth. Certainly, the child will get acquainted with paternal grandparents also, by frequent visits. So, the letter produced by the counsel for the 1st appellant in Mat.Appeal No.152/14 cannot be taken as a material to deny the visitation right of the paternal grandparents.
12. In the impugned order, it is seen that the paternal grandparents are permitted to have access to the child from 11 a.m. till 1 p.m. on every first working Saturdays of each Month at the court premises. Whereas, the visitation right given to the grandmother, after giving full custody of the child to the father, is that she is entitled to have the custody of the ward from 10 a.m. of every working Saturdays till 10 a.m. of the next working day. Thus, an interim custody of one day is given to the grandmother. We find no justification in the above discrimination. So, we are of the opinion that, the paternal grandparents and the maternal grandmother have to be given equal visitation right.
13. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the relief 'c' in the impugned order under challenge. While the father is abroad or not in station, his father and mother are entitled to have the custody of the child from 10 a.m. of every working Saturdays till 10 a.m. of next working day. The venue to hand over the child will be the court premises. We find no reason to interfere with any of the other findings in the impugned order under challenge.
In the result, Mat.Appeal No.152/14 stands dismissed and Mat.Appeal No.376/14 stands allowed in part. It is made clear that, if the child is affected with any kind of disease or any other difficulty when he is under the custody of his grandparents, it is for them to give proper medical care and attention for the same. If the paternal grandparents or maternal grandmother are aggrieved by the attitude or lack of care of their counter part while the child was in other's custody, they are at liberty to approach the court seeking proper remedies.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge Sd/-
K.HARILAL, Judge.