JUDGMENT :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr.C.B.Dastoor for the appellant and learned advocate Ms.Shruti Pathak for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 12.7.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.211 of 2019. It was proceedings under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1956.

2.1 The Family Court passed final order holding that in the facts of the case and looking to the age of child which is five years, custody could not be given to the applicant, however these directions came to be issued, (i) directing respondent Mother to take the child Vihan to the place of applicant on every Sunday and on public holidays for four hours from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (ii) in the event the applicant or his wife comes to the house of the respondent to meet the child, the respondent shall not object. (iii) the applicant shall pay Rs.7000/- per month towards maintenance as well as for expenses towards medical treatment and education of the child.

3. The applicant happens to be grand father whereas respondent is the mother. It was the case of the applicant that respondent- daughter-in-law and his son Shrikant had married an out of the wed-lock the son named Vihan was born on 10.10.2017. The father- son Shrikant died at young age on 21.11.2018 having suffered a stroke. The case put forth was that upon death of said Shrikant and after his last rites, respondent mother went away to her parental home taking away the child. It was stated that the applicant had in his family wife and three sons including the deceased Shrikant. It was claimed that they were keeping and maintaining the minor Vihan properly extending the family love.

3.1 According to the case of the plaintiff, that the respondent mother-daughter-in-law since has been serving in the Municipal Corporation, used to go to service leaving the custody of son with applicant and applicant’s place and that he had no care for her son even when her husband Shrikant was alive. It was stated that after the death of Shrikant, the respondent was requested to stay at home but she refused and has been staying since last one year at paternal home with Vihan, not maintaining and attaining the son proper confining him to the home only.

3.2 It was the further case the respondent was likely to remarry in which event the welfare of the son would be jeopardise. It was stated that the respondent was persuaded to come to stay together at matrimonial house but she has not come and has been spoiling the life of minor son. It was alleged that respondent is more interest in service than in her son and has not been properly bringing him up. It was submitted that applicant is grand father, who is receiving sizeable amount of pension, would properly take care and upbring his grand son.

3.3 Reply was filed by the respondent to the aforesaid application of the grand father denying all the facts except about marriage with said Shrikant and his death. It was contended that all the allegations in the application was false and the application was filed to harass the respondent. It was contended that she was the mother and was able to take proper care of the son. It was stated that the applicant was seventy years old and suffering from ailments. Regarding staying at applicant’s house, it was stated that when Shrikant was alive the other sister-in-law had been dominating and the respondent was taunted for small things. It was stated that even after the birth of child, nobody had come to see them and even tiffin was not sent to the hospital and in no way they were helpful. It was alleged that the applicant’s family had mated out step motherly treatment.

3.4 Trial court took up the application of the applicant grand father and considered the same in wake of allegations and counter allegations as above which culminated into impugned order.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that respondent was had not been look