JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,  J. When this matter was considered by another Bench of this Court on 06.05.2025, after interacting with the parties, the following order had been indited: “We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8. 2. Petitioner is the son-in-law of respondent Nos.7 and 8. 2. Petitioner is the son-in-law of respondent Nos.7 and 8. The wife of the petitioner/daughter of respondent Nos.7 and 8 passed away on account of malignancy on 21.03.2024. The minor child, born out of the relationship between the petitioner and the late daughter of respondent Nos.7 and 8, is presently residing with respondent Nos.7 and 8 . She is aged about 4 ½ . 3. Learned Government Pleader has placed before us the report of the Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery police station, which indicates that the issues between the petitioner and respondents 7 and 8 arise out of petty misunderstandings and an amicable solution is possible if both sides wish to do so. 4. Having interacted with the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8, we are of the opinion that this is a case where issues between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8 can be easily resolved. Presently, the minor child is dependent on and seems quite attached to respondent Nos.7 and 8. This is possibly on account of the fact that the petitioner had no access to his child and has been away from her for quite some time, after the death of his wife. The petitioner, very reluctantly and on our prompting, has agreed that, for a period of two weeks, he will reside with respondent Nos.7 and 8 and his minor daughter at their residence at Coorg. We believe that this course of action is necessary, so that a bond may develop between the petitioner and his minor child. 5. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have absolutely no objection to the aforesaid course of action. 6. Therefore, purely as an interim measure and subject to further orders, we permit the petitioner to reside with respondent Nos.7 and 8 and his minor child at the residence of respondent Nos.7 and 8 at Coorg, for a period of two weeks from 08.05.2025. 5. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have absolutely no objection to the aforesaid course of action. 6. Therefore, purely as an interim measure and subject to further orders, we permit the petitioner to reside with respondent Nos.7 and 8 and his minor child at the residence of respondent Nos.7 and 8 at Coorg, for a period of two weeks from 08.05.2025. The petitioner will also be permitted to take the child out and there will be absolutely no restriction placed on his interactions with the child during the aforesaid period of two weeks. List this matter for further consideration on 22.05.2025.” 2. Smt.A.Parvathi Menon - learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that her client is now staying – in obedience to the above order - with respondents 7 and 8, as also the child, in the latter’s residence and that the relationship between them has moved cordially. She, therefore, prayed that the child be released to her client; but undertaking that the maternal grandparents, namely respondents 7 and 8 will have unrestricted access to her, either physically or through phone and another methods. She explained that her client has nothing against his in-laws and therefore, that he is also willing to take the child to them whenever they want. 3. Sri.Mohan Kumar – learned counsel for the party respondents, graciously accepted the afore suggestions saying that his clients never want permanent custody of the child, but is concerned about her as any grandparent would be. He added that his clients have been taking care of the child ever since the death of her mother and therefore, that they have developed close affinity to her. He prayed that his clients be, therefore, allowed full access to her whenever they want, as has been suggested by Smt.A.Parvathi Menon. 4. Interestingly, the afore extracted order itself records that the disputes between the parties are out of “petty misunderstandings”. 5. That said, we do not see why there should be a dispute between the parties with respect to the child. Both of them are victims - One of whom has lost his wife; while the other having lost their daughter. They must learn to live each other in peace and act in the best interest of the child, who, we are sure would be greatly benefited by the presence of grandparents on either side. Both of them are victims - One of whom has lost his wife; while the other having lost their daughter. They must learn to live each other in peace and act in the best interest of the child, who, we are sure would be greatly benefited by the presence of grandparents on either side. In the afore circumstances, recording the afore submissions of both sides, we allow this Original Petition and permit the petitioner to be in custody of his daughter; however, making it clear that respondents 7 and 8 will have full and unconditional access to her, either physically or through phone and such other methods, at any point of time. We close this judgment with hortative hope that the parties will find peace with each other and will live amiably, holding each other in the highest levels of the relationship between them. After we dictated this part of the judgment, Smt.Parvathi Menon – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that her client has moved a original petition before the jurisdictional Family Court seeking permanent custody of the child. She added that in view of the afore directions, the said petition may not be necessary to be further prosecuted; and hence that her client will withdraw the same, provided respondents 7 and 8 do not create any further impediment. Sri.Mohan Kumar – learned counsel for the said respondents, in response, submitted that his clients’ intend is not to pursue litigation, but to ensure that the child lives with dignity and full worth. He added that in view of the afore arrangement made by this Court, the afore said original petition may not be necessary and that his clients will also support its withdrawal before the learned Family Court in due course. This is recorded.